"God/gods does/do not exist"

This is to be a structured debate between myself and Haujiro. I will be arguing for the statement that "God/gods does/do not exist".

I believe that God does not exist for the simple reason that I do not believe there is any reason for him to exist. One of the major arguments for his existence seems to be that the world around us, the complications of the universe, mut have been designed (the ontological argument). However, I feel this is unneccesary since if we look around us then we see that the world as it exists could perfectly well be be formed by chance. Let me explain:
If we accept the existence of parallel universes (as we must as proved by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the thought experiment of Schrodinger's cat) then anything may, theoretically happen. For example, if I pick up an object, whilst it is probable that it will fall to the ground, it is perfectly possible that it will turn into a small purple gibbon. By this reasoning, there may be millions upon millions of universes where there is no life, or indeed anything resembling earth. However, there will also be millions of universes where they is an earth, simply because it is POSSIBLE to exist. We simply happen to live in one of these universes (or realities, if we are being pedantic).
Where does this leave God? Well, it means that in the traditional sense (omnipotent, omnipresent, etc) it is impossible for a diety to exist, as they cannot exist in all realities - they are subject to the same rules of probability that effect everything else. This means that they are no longer "all powerful", and ergo, not God.

Let the debate commence!

Irenicas said:

I believe that God does not exist for the simple reason that I do not believe there is any reason for him to exist.

Click to expand...

My response - I believe that "God" does exists for the simple reason that I do believe there is reason for him to exist.

Irenicas said:

One of the major arguments for his existence seems to be that the world around us, the complications of the universe, mut have been designed (the ontological argument). However, I feel this is unneccesary since if we look around us then we see that the world as it exists could perfectly well be be formed by chance. Let me explain:
If we accept the existence of parallel universes (as we must as proved by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the thought experiment of Schrodinger's cat) then anything may, theoretically happen. For example, if I pick up an object, whilst it is probable that it will fall to the ground, it is perfectly possible that it will turn into a small purple gibbon. By this reasoning, there may be millions upon millions of universes where there is no life, or indeed anything resembling earth. However, there will also be millions of universes where they is an earth, simply because it is POSSIBLE to exist. We simply happen to live in one of these universes (or realities, if we are being pedantic).

Click to expand...

This would suppose that one believes that "God" exists only because there is nothing to prove otherwise. Rather than having a scientific explanation for the universe and "Man", etc., that "God" exists only because there is no higher being, that "God" exists only, "because".

I do not believe this. This is no argument. Although I do believe that "God" does exist, it is not because of what he has done in the universe. As far as we know, the history of "God" creating the universe could be a Christian farse to show his power.

The universe is not proof that "God" exists. We can do away with the ontological (St. Thomas Aquinas) and cosmical (St. Anselm) arguments, as well as the argument from design (Paley), argument from common consent (Socrates or Aristotle) and argument from changed lives (persons who feel "God" exists because they have improved).


"Do not treat your conscience with contempt,
for it always advises you to do what is best. It
sets before you the will of God and the angels;
it frees you from the secret defilements of the
heart; and when you depart this life it grants
you the gift of intimacy with God."

(St. Maximos the Confessor)

I do not believe that we need anything external at all to prove that "God" exists. I do believe that our conscience is our link to "God". Like an antenna, it protrudes from our souls and guides us to what is right.

My proof of this would be examples of people such as Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama, Bartolome De Las Casas, etc, etc. Would people like them exist if there was no "God"?

Of course I base everything on my own experiences, but who doesn't? At least I give you something that I know you have felt as well, an experience that we have both shared, rather then tell you to believe in something you have never felt, or seen. You know as well as I that there is a force within you that pushes you to do what is right. If you didn't, you would have never come to this forum in the first place.

*can we just have this note inserted here without it being added to the count?

Thanks.

Well, I have to admit I'm a little confused by your post, H, because you don't seem to present an argument for God's existence. I can't really reply because I have nothing to reply to! If this was intentional, levae it as it is and I'll try to cope! But it DOES seema little odd.

Thank you fr your time *

Irenicas said:

*can we just have this note inserted here without it being added to the count?

Thanks.

Well, I have to admit I'm a little confused by your post, H, because you don't seem to present an argument for God's existence. I can't really reply because I have nothing to reply to! If this was intentional, levae it as it is and I'll try to cope! But it DOES seema little odd.

Thank you fr your time *

Click to expand...

Actually it didn't post the way I created it...I will have to redo it

Look above, I have redone it.

Very well, you throw away the external arguments for God... but then refer to people as being proof of God. Is this not contradiction, for regardless of our innerselves we are still external beings.
As for a force that pushes us to do right, surely you must admit there is also a force that pushes us to do wrong? Does this not suggest that it is simply a part of humanity, not the divine?
If your argument is that God exists because we believe in him, then I'm afraid you have again contradicted yourself, for if we have the power to create God, then he cannot be omnipotent, and therefore is not God.
Would there be people like the Dalai Lama and so on without God? Surely there would, for there are examples of people who did just as much good without a belief in religion - for example Florence Nightengale, though a christian, did not do her works for god but for humanity. Certainly, there are generally more of these kind of people in religious societies, since religion provides a framework to base your actions on, but that does not neccesarily indicate that God exists. If we were to follow some basic rules of society without any attempt to follow God, then we would be good people just as these religious wokrers were.
If you are arguing that God is within us, and pushing us to be good, then how do you explain the human preponderance to do what we in society class as "evil" Are only some people "with God". What about all the mass murderers out there, are they an exception? Or are the "normal" people, neither wholey good or bad the exception? Why do some people (the ones you mention are good examples) seem to have divinity and others not. Doesn't this indicate that this is something unconnected to God, something inherently human?

Irenicas said:

Very well, you throw away the external arguments for God... but then refer to people as being proof of God. Is this not contradiction, for regardless of our innerselves we are still external beings.
As for a force that pushes us to do right, surely you must admit there is also a force that pushes us to do wrong? Does this not suggest that it is simply a part of humanity, not the divine??

Click to expand...

Again, I must base everything on my own experiences, and I have never in my life felt a force push me to do wrong. I consider our conscience internal not external...that is another debate altogether.

Irenicas said:

If your argument is that God exists because we believe in him, then I'm afraid you have again contradicted yourself, for if we have the power to create God, then he cannot be omnipotent, and therefore is not God.

Click to expand...

I do not see where I have contradicted myself. I am not saying "God" exists just because...I have explained very well that I believe that our link and proof is in our conscience.

Irenicas said:

Would there be people like the Dalai Lama and so on without God? Surely there would, for there are examples of people who did just as much good without a belief in religion - for example Florence Nightengale, though a christian, did not do her works for god but for humanity. Certainly, there are generally more of these kind of people in religious societies, since religion provides a framework to base your actions on, but that does not neccesarily indicate that God exists. If we were to follow some basic rules of society without any attempt to follow God, then we would be good people just as these religious wokrers were.

Click to expand...

I was not referring to basic "goodness" I am talking about altruistic people who do nothing but help others. There is a difference.

Irenicas said:

If you are arguing that God is within us, and pushing us to be good, then how do you explain the human preponderance to do what we in society class as "evil" Are only some people "with God". What about all the mass murderers out there, are they an exception? Or are the "normal" people, neither wholey good or bad the exception? Why do some people (the ones you mention are good examples) seem to have divinity and others not. Doesn't this indicate that this is something unconnected to God, something inherently human?

Click to expand...

Again, I am referring to my own self. I think we can end this debate with one question:

Have you yourself felt the urge to do evil things?

If so, then I am wrong.

I had a few very large problems with writing a responce to your argument. Let me explain.

First, how do we define good or evil. You use the word alturistic which is much more desciptive. However, can any action be completely alturistic, or are there always selfish reasons for it? Personally, I define evil as "Knowing what the right action is and choosing not to perform that action". This means that good and evil are entirely subjective, as the only person who can really judge your acts to be good or evil is you.
The second problem I have is good and evil in organised religion. Almost every different religion or religious system has different interpretations of good and evil. For example, Buddhists would consider the eating of flesh to be, if not evil, the at least, not good. However, Christians would probably not consider this so.

The biggest problem I have is telling apart my own mind and seeing whether that is reflected in the mind of others. I'm going to go for it here and say what I think is true.

Have I ever felt the urge to do evil? Yes. If someone hits me, I feel the urge to hit them back, something I would consider evil. I have spent some time in my life in desperate situations, and I have considered stealing, simply because I was so hungry. I didn't, but the urge was there. Every person feels the urge to do "evil" at some point, even yourself. There are no exceptions. Someone who claims they have never had the urge to do evil in their life is either a liar or has not understood themselves at all. You yourself have either done, or had the urge to do, an evil act.

By your own arguments, you are wrong. God does not exist.

Irenicas said:

I had a few very large problems with writing a responce to your argument. Let me explain.

First, how do we define good or evil. You use the word alturistic which is much more desciptive. However, can any action be completely alturistic, or are there always selfish reasons for it? Personally, I define evil as "Knowing what the right action is and choosing not to perform that action". This means that good and evil are entirely subjective, as the only person who can really judge your acts to be good or evil is you..

Click to expand...

You talk about responses to everything. I am talking about the origin of things. I base everything on myself, and I have had the desire to do truly "good" things for no personal gain, and I have seen people do purely "good" things for no personal gain, as they were even killed for their "good" deeds.

Irenicas said:

The second problem I have is good and evil in organised religion. Almost every different religion or religious system has different interpretations of good and evil. For example, Buddhists would consider the eating of flesh to be, if not evil, the at least, not good. However, Christians would probably not consider this so

Click to expand...

I believe that all religions have the same fundamentals. If you look at religions, they all revolve around "good" deeds, even though many have been distorted for personal gain by our fellow "men"

Irenicas said:

The biggest problem I have is telling apart my own mind and seeing whether that is reflected in the mind of others. I'm going to go for it here and say what I think is true.

Have I ever felt the urge to do evil? Yes. If someone hits me, I feel the urge to hit them back, something I would consider evil. I have spent some time in my life in desperate situations, and I have considered stealing, simply because I was so hungry. I didn't, but the urge was there. Every person feels the urge to do "evil" at some point, even yourself. There are no exceptions. Someone who claims they have never had the urge to do evil in their life is either a liar or has not understood themselves at all. You yourself have either done, or had the urge to do, an evil act.

By your own arguments, you are wrong. God does not exist.

Click to expand...

Your wanting to do evil was not coming from you. It is an action caused by someone else doing something wrong to you. If you did something bad to them, I am sure that you would feel unhappy about it later, would you not? I asked you if you have had the urge to something "evil". Not because of something else.

Have you sat in your room thinking about blowing up the world? Have you thought of hurting someone, just "because"?

If your evil thoughts were not provoked by someone or something's actions toward you, then i am wrong and you win the argument. If not, I will take it as a victory. God does exist, he/she proves it in your conscience.

What is this talk of religion... the idea of the existence of God and the existence of religion are unconnected. They have nothing to do with each other.

As for your argument as to my thought against others caused by others... where do THEIR actions come from? surely at some point there must have been someone who sat down and did want to hurt people purely "because". Therefore evil inherent does exit. Therefore god does not.

Irenicas said:

What is this talk of religion... the idea of the existence of God and the existence of religion are unconnected. They have nothing to do with each other.

Click to expand...

Most religions revolve around a "God", how is that unconnected?

Irenicas said:

As for your argument as to my thought against others caused by others... where do THEIR actions come from? surely at some point there must have been someone who sat down and did want to hurt people purely "because". Therefore evil inherent does exit. Therefore god does not.

Click to expand...

I am talking about you. You can't speak for others, others can't speak for you. Do you want to do evil things just "because"?

Don't try and avoid the issue - we are not just talking about "me" we are talking about humanity as a whole. I am not an image of perfect peace and love either... so if we admit that SOME people do evil acts simply "becuase" then we must admit (by your own arguments) that God does not exist.

Also, in regards to the religion/God problem, the existence of God and the protrayal of such in religion are so different to be unconnected. How do you explain, otherwise, the myriad of religions... if God existed and was intimately connected with religion, surely all religions would be the same...

Irenicas said:

Don't try and avoid the issue - we are not just talking about "me" we are talking about humanity as a whole. I am not an image of perfect peace and love either... so if we admit that SOME people do evil acts simply "becuase" then we must admit (by your own arguments) that God does not exist.

Click to expand...

You don't try to avoid the issue. I am not having a debate with humanity. My debate and my proof is with you. If you can admit that you are evil, you win.

Irenicas said:

Also, in regards to the religion/God problem, the existence of God and the protrayal of such in religion are so different to be unconnected..

Click to expand...

I am sorry, the portrayal and existence of "God" are different? Is "God" your drinking buddy? He would have to exist for you to know that his existence and portrayal are different (this would suggest that you believe he does exist).

Irenicas said:

How do you explain, otherwise, the myriad of religions... if God existed and was intimately connected with religion, surely all religions would be the same....

Click to expand...

If you look at the core beliefs of most religions, they are in fact the same. "God" is portrayed as "good" fighting "evil". We are directed not to steal, kill, lie, etc.

what about buddhaism?

Hare Krishna

I did not read the whole tread of discussion but if you like let's go back to God / gods.
Your argument is there are many evil people therefor, God does not exist. If He would exist He would not allow evil in this world.

One interesting answer on this is that there are also many people who are godly, saints. So, according to this observation there must be God. Nobody without godly vision can become good, non-envious, compassionate, merciful etc. These are the pure qualities of God which one can acquire only by practicing the designation-less, pure religion of the soul.

One can answer "Yes, but we see also welfare workers who are atheists". Yeah, true, but they are not completely good. No one of them. They might perform welfare-work and still be drunkards, they might even take drugs like many film stars and even indulge in immoral activities. They are not godly in real sense, not at all.

Anyway, some arguments against or for?

Hare Krishna.
Nitai

I only read the first few posts but let me just say that paralell universes/ alternate realities are not same as "other dimensions", which is how they're wrongly portrayed on science fiction tv shows. And my science teacher says there is infinacy of alternate realities.

Anyway yeah all powerful "god(s)" do(es) not exist. Now I'm not really sure what "purpose" of people is on universal scale if universe is infinite since it's surrounded by "nothing", but at least we're doing something.

Yeah Good idea....