Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nelson on June 17, 2011 at 11:44am

lol. o noez! :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Derek on June 18, 2011 at 7:43am

right i suppose we would have to accept that as good evidence for god. it's the formless part i have trouble with, i just can't imagine what a god would look like.

 

hey, look,  i'm not bothering with caps too, it's actually not a bad idea as it seems to save time : )

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sophie on June 17, 2011 at 11:52am

Ok sorry for hijacking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sin on June 17, 2011 at 12:29pm

We probably need to first have a pre-agreed definition of god and the characteristics he/she/it/they possess. Personally at least, while I'm open to the possiblity of finding evidence of self-aware entities which had a hand in the creation of our universe or galaxy or planet or species, of finding entities of immense power who could exert some control over our consiousness after our bodies have died, etc., I cannot conceive of anything that would convince me of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entity who would DESERVE my worship. Evidence for anything interesting that could be considered supernatural is simply another cause of human curiosity and scientific investigation, not a reason to give up and think "wow, we can never know how that works, let's worship it and believe it has the right to dictate our behaviour and our thoughts."
So while a spontaneously healed amputee would certainly be impressive, I cannot force myself to think that it would be impossible for anything other than an omnipotent god to have caused it, and thus would not be able to accept it as evidence for god. And the same would apply to any other phenomenon, however impressive. They would only be evidence of power, not evidence for god.
The problem of course is that while the god of the major religions tend to be a pretty lame and provincial one, whose miracles entail healing and transformation of matter into different forms and the like, as science has progressed and our understanding of the universe has grown, the idea of what god is has been altered to encompass that change.
So we can have the idea of a prime mover type entity which is the most powerful and unprovable incarnation of god, yet we also have the idea of 'miracles' that are held to be evidence of god, even though we can conceive (if not at present achieve) of technological means to engineer those same effects. And thus any miracle, whether demonstrable and statistically significant evidence of the efficacy of intercessory prayer, a big booming voice proclaiming to be god, or the transformation of the world's oceans into alcohol, would still be insufficient evidence for god.
And evidence of miracles does not equate to evidence for a prime mover. And evidence for a prime mover still does not lead to evidence of an entity that is omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent. And existence of such an entity still does not mean it deserves our worship and the absolute surrender of self to its will.
That said though, if there existed evidence of a conscious entity who had a deliberate hand in the creation of our planet or the evolution of our species, I'll happily accept the existence of such a conscious entity. It just won't be called god.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Derek on June 18, 2011 at 7:55am

That's the thing isn't it, why bother calling it god at all? it doesn't make sense. If we don't even have god defined, how the hell can we then say "see, that is evidence of god."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by oneinfinity on June 17, 2011 at 3:17pm

Definitely an interesting question. In the event that such "evidence" did start showing up, how would we know that it wasn't some alien species just messing around or manipulating us or something like that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Derek on June 18, 2011 at 8:02am

I think i'd prefer aliens messing with us than any celestial supervisor. ha

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Akshay Bist on June 18, 2011 at 1:37pm

I think there are two aspects to consider here - Whether or not god/gods exist. And if god(s) exist, are we supposed to live our lives in a particular way to appease these gods.

Whether god exists or not is a paradoxical question. If you say that the universe needed a creator & couldn't have come into existence on its own, then the same can be said of your god(creator). If you say that your god always existed, is timeless etc, then the same can be said about the universe. But if you say that the universe(or multiverse) didn't need a creator and exists on its own, then the counter intuitive idea of something out of nothing comes into play. All you can say is that it is simpler & more logical that the universe came into existence on its own and then evolved, instead of an entity coming into existence and then planning & executing the creation & evolution of the universe.

But when religion comes into the fray, then its not just about belief in the existence god(s) but all the dogma that comes with it. Theists will have you believe that the god they believe in and the religion they follow is the true god/religion & the right way to live is to follow the way of life prescribed by that religion. And when you see the contradictions & in accuracies, impossibilities/improbabilities in the religions & their texts then you can say that the religion is false.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve on June 18, 2011 at 3:14pm

*thumbs up*

That's exactly why all the arguments from creation are waste of time. Even if you can somehow prove a creator god, you still don't have theism. Why does that god care what we eat, when we work and who we have sex with in what position? And how does he communicate those wishes to us?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page