Debate corner: Does God exist?

[Guardian_Angel]

Originally Posted by Noctis

I have something to say to that.

I think "half the people in the world" is a gross exaggeration no matter how you look at it.

Kids in Africa are starving while the adults are busy cutting people's heads off with a machete.

Prisoners in China(who probably did nothing to get in there) have their organs cut out and bleed to death.

Homeless litter the streets and parks.

Some of the rich, powerful, and famous that you would consider "happy and content" are miserable because their entire lives are open to the public, to the point where they can't masturbate without it being on the news.

Some of the "happy and content" are only so because they're worthless maggots leeching off of those that genuinely work hard.

A few examples would be:
-People in their 20s with foodstamps.
-Drug dealers.
-Cigarette companies.
-Thieves.

HA! nothing like a dose of heavy pessimism to go with your debate.
I think YOUR view is highly extreme, I mean maybe it was opinionated and rash to say that half the people, as yes a majority people in the world are in dire circumstances.
But to say that the massive wealth of people in Europe Canada and the US are all unhappy. When I said content I didn't mean every person who had everything they wished for. I'm talking about the middle ground of people who are okay. A sadistic higher power wouldn't have a need for a mass of people to be doing okay... nor would he allow humanity to advance.

Sure there's a lot of evil in the world, but there's also a lot of good. For all the wars in Africa there's an agreement in the UN. for every rapist there's a volunteer. I mean look at what good this very site is providing, completely provided for by the owner, who has nothing to gain. the argument of if there is a god why is there suffering? well if there isn't a god why is there so much good?

[ATP787]

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

I never claimed that the Christian belief is the only belief, but there are a lot of Christians in the world, such a large number makes it a good example.

You said, "I honestly am incapable of believing in god. If he existed...why would there be children starving in Africa?"

If you're going to use that example, then you're incapable of believing in the Abrahamic God, not "god" in general. You implied that in order for god to exist, he must be benevolent (no starving children), yet only certain religions claim to have benevolent gods (IE: Abrahamic, even though there's a lot more to their God than just being loving).

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

Unless god is a dog, I think that much power would still corrupt him/her (or it even?). Human characteristic or not.

A dog? What? Why would power corrupt him? If some higher being has the ability to create highly advanced genomes, ecological systems, or the universe in general, something tells me that human characteristics such as corruption don't really apply.

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

I'm simply stating my opinion.

Absolutely. We wouldn't be having this little discussion if you were listing off facts.

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

That if God did exist, then I think there wouldn't be cause for debate, it would just be obvious, people wouldn't doubt it. Such a power couldn't remain hidden from everyone in the world. The laws of science most likely wouldn't exist if there was a divine power of some kind, and don't say that God could have made the laws of science, I still find it unlikely that there would be so many restricting laws (Gravity, as an example) if there was a God.

Why can't I say that God created the laws of physics? Why would there "most likely" be no laws of physics with a God?

You do realize that gravity has a crucial role in evolution and your daily life, right? God or no god, if gravity did not exist, you would not be here. How does gravity have any relevance when it comes to the God debate?

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

A lack of evidence for something may not be evidence against it, but a lack of evidence for it is certainly not evidence that it exists either.

I'm aware of that. You said there are many "scientific things" that make it impossible for a god to exist. There aren't.

Originally Posted by ShadeOfSolitude

If "god" was a sadistic higher power the system he created isn't very effective as half the people in the world is happy and content. If I was a sadistic higher power I would create a world full of death and dying and torture, without the element of hope in it. Surely that would be more satisfying.

Every person on earth has problems of some sort. There is no person on this earth, to my knowledge, that is utterly content and happy.

By the way, I wasn't implying god IS sadistic; just that he doesn't need to be benevolent in order to exist, as she was attempting to point out.

Originally Posted by ShadeOfSolitude

As for whether we need to believe in god for him to exist. what god needs to exist is evidence. if there is no evidence then its a faith leaden belief. that doesn't mean he DOES exist it means people believe he exists.

...Ok? What’s your point? I think you completely misunderstood the points of my post.

Originally Posted by ShadeOfSolitude

Plus it matters what the term "God" means, many people think of the religious characterisation of God, and so it is unfair to think that people will think otherwise. Also this thread is "does God exist?" not "is there a higher power?"

Higher power=god. They're two different names for the exact same thing.

Quite honestly, I don't really care what other people think of when the term "god" comes to mind. If they're going to instantaneously apply god to religion, and say "since religion is flawed, god must not exist," then we have problems.

Unfair to think otherwise? Isn't that the point of a debate, to make people think "otherwise?"

Originally Posted by ShadeOfSolitude

and my question is why can't god be a benevolent power for him to exist? Just as much proof for that theory rather than he is a sadistic higher power.

He...can. Again, you misunderstood my post.

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

Personally, being a christian born athesit, baptised church every sunday god in my heart all that jazz, I know God doesnt exist, it is much more conceieabble that god is a human made creation, to goivern and keep order during the chaos, to guide away from immorality and a natural human nature to answer the nuances in life that we cannot comprehend.
Though as Science and technology advances we as a species are advances in psychology. Gradually after generations we are seeing taht we no longer need a god to guide our morals: we have law. We don't need a God to give us answers : we have Science. And we don't need a God to pray to for miracles or hope: we have medical breakthroughs for that. God is an outdated ocncept and unles God proves his love for hsi children better tahn science is, he is a achaic formula to me.

Despite the fact that what I just quoted you telling me is entirely irrelevant, no, you don't "know" that god doesn't exist. Don't try claiming that you do, either.

[WhySoSerious?]

Originally Posted by TopOfTheWorld

You said, "I honestly am incapable of believing in god. If he existed...why would there be children starving in Africa?"

If you're going to use that example, then you're incapable of believing in the Abrahamic God, not "god" in general. You implied that in order for god to exist, he must be benevolent (no starving children)



...Ok? What’s your point? I think you completely misunderstood the points of my post. Higher power=god. They're two different names for the exact same thing.

Quite honestly, I don't really care what other people think of when the term "god" comes to mind. If they're going to instantaneously apply god to religion, and say "since religion is flawed, god must not exist," then we have problems.

I wasn't intending to say that god HAD to be benevolent to exist... but, a benevolent god, first, is what comes to mind. And second, a malevolent god seems less likely to me, because I can't see why a malevolent god would feel the need to create humans in the first place, let alone give us the means to live a relatively comfortable day-to-day life (at least for those of us in more fortunate parts of the world)


And a higher power does not mean "god" necessarily, it can, but it doesn't have to.

And people instantaneously apply god to Religion because that's where god comes from? Is from religious beliefs? The whole notion of a "god" is a religious one in one way or another, because non-religious people don't usually believe in god, hence why they are "non-religious" ? So it's reasonable that people say things like "Since religion is flawed, god must not exist", that isn't unequivocal evidence against his existence of course, but the logic behind why people say it implies that, no, we don't have problems?

Another thing about "Higher power" verses "god" is that, usually if you say "higher power" there's a far lesser chance that it's going to instantly set of the "RELIGION" thought in people's brains. God is usually a persona of some kind, and a religious symbol. Whereas a Higher Power is simply a force of some kind, not needing to be any kind of form with thought or intention.

[thebigmole]

Honestly? I can' believe in God. I think I did for a time. I remember praying. Then my grandmother died and I stopped, I stopped believing in wishes too. It was't until I joined this site 5 years ago that I realized that I needed to be an atheist. I had spent so much time hating this "being" for everything that was missing or going wrong in my life. I also can't stand the Christian definition of God. I mean how sad is it that this "being" needs His ego stroked so bad that whenever someone hasn't worshiped Him in life, even if they have never done anything too terrible, He will throw a hissy fit and put them through eternal torture. So now I just say I'm an atheist and my life is better for it. And if He does exist and we meet whenever I die then I look forward to my converstation with the Big Guy. I'm gonna give Him an earful.

[ATP787]

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

I wasn't intending to say that god HAD to be benevolent to exist... but, a benevolent god, first, is what comes to mind. And second, a malevolent god seems less likely to me, because I can't see why a malevolent god would feel the need to create humans in the first place, let alone give us the means to live a relatively comfortable day-to-day life (at least for those of us in more fortunate parts of the world)

So he could be somewhere in the middle of benevolent and malevolent, no? To put it simply, he doesn't actually care about what he created; whatever happens to earth and its inhabitants has no bearing to god.

A malevolent god has no need to create humans in the first place? Huh?
What exactly is he supposed to wish evil upon then?

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

And a higher power does not mean "god" necessarily, it can, but it doesn't have to.

It is another term for god or deity. What else does it stand for? Look up the definition.

ShadeOfSolitude basically said a higher power does not equal god. They're the same thing.

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

And people instantaneously apply god to Religion because that's where god comes from? Is from religious beliefs? The whole notion of a "god" is a religious one in one way or another, because non-religious people don't usually believe in god, hence why they are "non-religious" ? So it's reasonable that people say things like "Since religion is flawed, god must not exist", that isn't unequivocal evidence against his existence of course, but the logic behind why people say it implies that, no, we don't have problems?

You're using a questionable cause and are denying the antecedent. Both are fallacies, for good reason.

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

Another thing about "Higher power" verses "god" is that, usually if you say "higher power" there's a far lesser chance that it's going to instantly set of the "RELIGION" thought in people's brains. God is usually a persona of some kind, and a religious symbol. Whereas a Higher Power is simply a force of some kind, not needing to be any kind of form with thought or intention.

Too bad god and higher power are two different names for the same thing.

[WhySoSerious?]

Originally Posted by TopOfTheWorld

So he could be somewhere in the middle of benevolent and malevolent, no? To put it simply, he doesn't actually care about what he created; whatever happens to earth and its inhabitants has no bearing to god.

It is another term for god or deity. What else does it stand for? Look up the definition.

ShadeOfSolitude basically said a higher power does not equal god. They're the same thing.You're using a questionable cause and are denying the antecedent. Both are fallacies, for good reason.Too bad god and higher power are two different names for the same thing.

If he doesn't care about what he created, then why create it in the first place? That doesn't make sense?

The proper definition for higher power is "Such as God" not "In other words, God". They were using God as an example of a Higher Power, but a Higher Power isn't simply limited to just being God, it's a broader definition. A Higher Power is a supernatural force capable of controlling outcomes in the material world, so God is an example of a higher power. However, a Higher Power isn't limited to simply the form of a being, like God, which is what I'm trying to say. Therefore they are not the same thing.

Saying that "God exists" vs. "There is a Higher Power of some kind" isn't the same. God is still a Religious concept, which is why people associate God with religion. Whereas A Higher Power is a different take on it, because a Higher power could be in many forms which are not a God or anything close to what humans would perceive as a God, it simply implies something with a great supernatural power.

[R.K.]

If he doesn't care about what he created, then why create it in the first place? That doesn't make sense?

Have you ever drawn a picture? I'm sure you have, do you still have it? Take care of it? Keep it in sterile case & say good night to it every evening?
No, [chose any reason from the vast number of alternatives] & drew it, but now you don't really care about it anymore.

[WhySoSerious?]

I'm an artist. I take care of my pictures and I don't draw something if I don't care enough about how it turns out, and if I care how it turns out, then it usually turns out good, and I keep it and go back to it as a reference for further works. If it doesn't turn out, then I still keep it just the same and learn from what I did wrong, If I cared enough to create it, then I care enough to keep it afterwards.

[Noctis]

Originally Posted by ShadeOfSolitude

HA! nothing like a dose of heavy pessimism to go with your debate.

I don't see myself as a pessimist but rather a REALIST.

I think YOUR view is highly extreme, I mean maybe it was opinionated and rash to say that half the people, as yes a majority people in the world are in dire circumstances.
But to say that the massive wealth of people in Europe Canada and the US are all unhappy. When I said content I didn't mean every person who had everything they wished for. I'm talking about the middle ground of people who are okay. A sadistic higher power wouldn't have a need for a mass of people to be doing okay... nor would he allow humanity to advance.

And of course, so long as a few corners of the world are all well and good, the other 70% of the planet can just rot for all we care right?

The best spice for despair is a hint of hope. After all, what could make a starving man more miserable than to have a grand feast just beyond his reach?

Sure there's a lot of evil in the world, but there's also a lot of good. For all the wars in Africa there's an agreement in the UN. for every rapist there's a volunteer. I mean look at what good this very site is providing, completely provided for by the owner, who has nothing to gain. the argument of if there is a god why is there suffering? well if there isn't a god why is there so much good?

I ask what an "agreement" in the UN does for the world at large. The whole situation is backwards when the nations of the world hold peace talks with guns pointed at each other's heads. I'm talking of course about the fact that the US and Russia have nuclear weaponry targeting the others' major cities. Only the fact that there would be mutual annihilation keeps one from pulling the trigger. Rest assured that if one could destroy the other without being destroyed themselves, they would do it without hesitation.

But perhaps you would be right in the literal sense that there isn't as much suffering as I thought there was. Perhaps at least half the people are "content". I just wonder if the people who are content deserves that contentment.

Yesterday during work, I've met with two men with "colorful" personalities. They met my friendly greetings with lots of "fuck you", "motherfucker" and "you fucking piece of shit" responses. I simply couldn't comprehend why people like them even exist at all, or why they should sit on the seat of contentment. Before anyone suggests that these people are probably miserable and don't have any friends, I would like to make it known that it would be plain common sense for them to only show this attitude to people they don't care about, while putting on a mask of friendliness in front of friends and family.

Then we have the lazy bums that lives on government money and never end up doing anything with their lives. There are also drug dealers, big businesses with cheap labor, gangsters, thieves, pimps, and other low life scum. They would all be in a state you describe as "content", but tell me, do they really deserve to be?

This is why I think that if a conscious being created the world, that being would have to be nothing short of sadistic to offer contentment to worthless maggots and to punish the innocent(the victims).

[ATP787]

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

If he doesn't care about what he created, then why create it in the first place? That doesn't make sense?

Caring about what you created and being entertained by what you created are two different things. The bastards who host dog fighting don't care about the animals in question, but are entertained by the chaos.

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

The proper definition for higher power is "Such as God" not "In other words, God". They were using God as an example of a Higher Power, but a Higher Power isn't simply limited to just being God, it's a broader definition. A Higher Power is a supernatural force capable of controlling outcomes in the material world, so God is an example of a higher power. However, a Higher Power isn't limited to simply the form of a being, like God, which is what I'm trying to say. Therefore they are not the same thing.

Now we're playing with words. My point, as I mentioned once already, was to tell ShadeOfSolitude that implying a god and a higher power being two different beings is flawed.

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

Saying that "God exists" vs. "There is a Higher Power of some kind" isn't the same. God is still a Religious concept, which is why people associate God with religion. Whereas A Higher Power is a different take on it, because a Higher power could be in many forms which are not a God or anything close to what humans would perceive as a God, it simply implies something with a great supernatural power.

I see that you're once again fallaciously linking god to religion.

A higher power is NOT a different take. Christians believe in a higher power; Muslims believe in a higher power; Wiccan's believe in a higher power; Deists believe in a higher power.

What people associate with what is irrelevant; it's what they SHOULD be associating with what.

[WhySoSerious?]

Originally Posted by TopOfTheWorld

A higher power is NOT a different take. Christians believe in a higher power; Muslims believe in a higher power; Wiccan's believe in a higher power; Deists believe in a higher power.

What people associate with what is irrelevant; it's what they SHOULD be associating with what.

Christians believe in god. And from what little I know about Wiccan's, they don't beleive in a god but rather a different kind of higher power (at least that's what my Wiccan friend tells me)

It's not irrelevant, people just associate however their mind associates it. Who is to say what they SHOULD be associating what with? Are you going to tell me what I'm supposed to associate a drawing of the moon with?

[ATP787]

Originally Posted by WhySoSerious?

Christians believe in god. And from what little I know about Wiccan's, they don't beleive in a god but rather a different kind of higher power (at least that's what my Wiccan friend tells me)

It's not irrelevant, people just associate however their mind associates it. Who is to say what they SHOULD be associating what with? Are you going to tell me what I'm supposed to associate a drawing of the moon with?

Yes, Christians do believe in God. They believe in a higher power. Wiccans, to my knowledge, worship a God and Goddess.

"Most American's believe in higher power, poll finds. 92 percent believe in God or a universal spirit." Many believe in a higher power, a GOD. They are the same thing. The sooner you accept this, the sooner we can move on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/23/ST2008062300818.html

1. God or a god; a deity; a supernatural force capable of effecting outcomes in the material world.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/higher_power


They should not be associating the two in all situations because it's a fallacy.
Your example completely took my meaning out of context (straw man).