to the question "does God exist?"

i have heard people say "look around you", that is proof within itself. it would be an ENORMOUS coincidence that an explosion happened, and created life so nicely for humans on earth. do you really believe that particles got scattered by the big bang and somehow some way were brought together to make animals, plants, and everything else on this earth? or do you believe that God made everything for the convenience of mankind? i believe so, we have technology we have exploited and in the beginning we had cattle, farms etc. it is all for us

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
i have heard people say "look around you", that is proof within itself. it would be an ENORMOUS coincidence that an explosion happened, and created life so nicely for humans on earth. do you really believe that particles got scattered by the big bang and somehow some way were brought together to make animals, plants, and everything else on this earth? ...[text shortened]... e technology we have exploited and in the beginning we had cattle, farms etc. it is all for us

The argument from incredulity.

I can't believe this could possibly have happened naturally, therefore it must've been god.

This demonstrates a deficiency in knowledge of natural processes not a rationale for god's existence.

As for the niceties of life? Life is nice here on Earth ofr all of us (and by that I mean all living species, not just humans) because our ancestors have spent significant time periods adapting to suit the environmental conditions.
Of course it's nice for us, we have been shaped by the evolutionary selection process to be able to comfortably survive in this environment.

Not sure what you're saying with you technology bit. Can you explain that a little more? But as for it being all for us - it's this mode of thinking which has created the current ecological crisis. We would be well served to remember that we share this planet with many other species - all of which have as much right to their existence as we do.

God is dead.

Originally posted by amannion
The argument from incredulity.

I can't believe this could possibly have happened naturally, therefore it must've been god.

This demonstrates a deficiency in knowledge of natural processes not a rationale for god's existence.

As for the niceties of life? Life is nice here on Earth ofr all of us (and by that I mean all living species, not just human ...[text shortened]... net with many other species - all of which have as much right to their existence as we do.

Good one .. I think.

Except I like cheeseburgers therefore don't care f-all for a cows rights. Same with chickens, gonna kill and eat 'em, steal there eggs too.

God put 'em here for me .. I believe that

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
i have heard people say "look around you", that is proof within itself. it would be an ENORMOUS coincidence that an explosion happened, and created life so nicely for humans on earth. do you really believe that particles got scattered by the big bang and somehow some way were brought together to make animals, plants, and everything else on this earth? ...[text shortened]... e technology we have exploited and in the beginning we had cattle, farms etc. it is all for us

I am a believer of the existence of a creator. I am inclined to believe that it is far-fetched that atomic reactions occured randomly, even over a very, very long time, to produce us and everything around us. But I have no evidence of a creator and I accept that I may be totally wrong in what I believe.

However, I don't believe in religions-- any of them! They are mainly some sort of political parties, forever trying to recruit more and more members to become stronger.

What's annoying is the fact that these religious people often criticize the non-believers, and state so positively that the non-believers would end up in hell when they die. Come to think if it, it is quite amusing that they can be so sure of this, even though they themselves have not been to heaven or hell.

So we have here a great deal of guesswork on both parties. On the one hand, one party says that we can't possibly emerge from nothing into something so complex and unique without something directing the processes along the way. On the other hand, the other party says there is no evidence of a creator.

In opinion, both have equal strength in their respective arguments. The difference, in my opinion, lies in the approaches to arrive at the opposing conclusions. One party is solely based on faith. They sometimes would like to claim that they base their beliefs in logical thinking too. But I don't believe this to be the case. The other party argues mainly along the lines of tangible evidence and other proven facts, plus some logical thinking.

I am inclined to take the mid-way position.

If I find a book that claims a sheep can fly, I have the choice of believing it or not. I can choose to say that since this book was written by a famous scientist, he must have a very good reason to make that statement; and he must have carried out tests etc to prove that fact and saw the sheep fly with his own eyes. On the other hand, I can also insist to see the sheep fly with my very own eyes before I can believe it as a fact. Only, and only if, I see it fly with my own eyes, will I believe. So how do I go about it? I start throwing off sheeps one by one from the edge of a cliff. The first one goes straight down to its death. OK, that's evidence no. 1 that sheep can't fly. Then continue with a second sheep. And on and on. When I come to the 1000th sheep, still the same thing happens. I think it is unfair to blame this guy if he doesn't believe that a sheep can fly.

The religious people base their beliefs mainly on a book that was supposedly written by people who actually saw some of the events themselves. But many more events were not actually written by eye-witnesses; far from it. They were written many, many generations later! Events might have been distorted, amended to suit special purposes. At least the possibility is there. And there is no evidence that this did not happen. In fact, there are claims that it did happen! At any rate, there are just too many inconsistencies found in many holybooks. We have gods setting rules which they themselves break. Of course the religious people have answers for this too. We have rules and laws that are open to so many ways of interpretations that render them useless anyway.

The religious people would fight tooth and nail on issues such as abortions etc. They claim that that amounts to killing; but not remembering that god not only killed these unborn infants, but also their mothers in the great flood. And he did it in a grand scale! But then again, it's OK for god to kill. He has the right to kill whatever he creates in the first place!

So in the end, which would you believe:
1. Believe in a creator and a religion; or
2. Don't believe in a creator at all; or
3. Believe in a creator, but not in any religion.

I am for no. 3. But I stress, I have no evidence for the existence of god!

Originally posted by jammer
Good one .. I think.

Except I like cheeseburgers therefore don't care f-all for a cows rights. Same with chickens, gonna kill and eat 'em, steal there eggs too.

God put 'em here for me .. I believe that

Ah, the argument from narcissism.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, the argument from narcissism.

dont get me wrong, i am not trying to prove the existence of God through this, that would be stupid and i would get made fun of for something so stupid. but i am saying it seems likely

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
dont get me wrong, i am not trying to prove the existence of God through this, that would be stupid and i would get made fun of for something so stupid. but i am saying it seems likely

My point was more towards Jammer's way of thinking - "the whole world is out there for my sole benefit".

Anyway, what you are referring to in your post is what's known as the anthropic principle. Essentially, it's roughly equivalent of telling people the punchline at the start of the joke - the thinking is all the wrong way round.

The basal assumption is that because we do exist, that we must exist. This is narcissism - there was no "requirement" for humans to evolve.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
My point was more towards Jammer's way of thinking - "the whole world is out there for my sole benefit".

Anyway, what you are referring to in your post is what's known as the anthropic principle. Essentially, it's roughly equivalent of telling people the punchline at the start of the joke - the thinking is all the wrong way round.

The basal assum ...[text shortened]... [b]must exist. This is narcissism - there was no "requirement" for humans to evolve.[/b]

if you believe that, then you probably get eaten alive in debates. well i believe it but im not proving that crap

Originally posted by jammer
Good one .. I think.

Except I like cheeseburgers therefore don't care f-all for a cows rights. Same with chickens, gonna kill and eat 'em, steal there eggs too.

God put 'em here for me .. I believe that

I'm sort of with you ...
I don't believe in a god so I think all of these species occurred naturally - as we did. I'm not completely amoral in that I have some compassion for the death of other creatures.
But I do love a nice steak or a succulent chicken Kiev or some fried eggs and bacon.

By the way, it's 'their' eggs.

I’m a monist (or non-dualist). I think that ultimately there is a totality, of which we are and everything is. I call it many things—including the ein sof, a Hebrew phrase meaning the “without end.” It is “without end” because, as the totality, it has no edge. Ein sof is the ultimate name for God in the Jewish non-dualistic traditions. It is the One for which there is no second. Sometimes it is called the Nameless Holy One. In other traditions it might be called Brahman (Advaita Vedanta) or Tao (Taoism and Zen Buddhism). This view is generally called the “perennial philosophy.”

Kabir Sahib (like me, a wayfarer who wandered across the religious boundaries) wrote:

“The holy One manifests in a myriad forms;
I sing the glory of the forms.”

If you can imagine the totality as an ocean (though there are no truly proper analogies for the totality), then I am like a stream in that ocean, real but not separate, transient. One day, the particular stream or current that I call “me” will disappear—but, as Ramakrishna put it: “Where could I possibly go?”

Although I think it likely that there are aspects of the totality that transcend our “cognitive grammar,” I do not assume that what is today unknown is forever unknowable—I have no idea what the limit of our knowledge is. I don’t indulge in “god of the gaps” type of thinking. Nor do I say that “transcendence” is beyond experience (in fact, I claim the opposite, based on my own experience). Nor do I think it necessitates admission of a “supernatural” category (it may, but I don’t think so).

I have no arguments with science, since I take religious creation myths to be exactly that—myths, and valid as such, but not science. What can be said about the physical/dimensional aspects of the universe, can be said by science. Religion represents for me an aesthetic response to that sense of immensity and transcendence—and to the coherence, harmony and ultimate beauty of the whole. When our conceptual language is not adequate to the experience of transcendence, myth, metaphor, poetry, symbology, music, and art step in.

Not that religions do not make metaphysical propositions—such as dualism (most theistic religious expressions) versus non-dualism—but I take those as secondary to, for lack of a better phrase, the “aesthetics of transcendence.” Especially as that aesthetics is aimed at eliciting the experience of transcendence—the so-called mystical (not supernatural!) experience, called satori in Zen* for example—via, song, dance, contemplative reading of religious texts (such as Torah or the Tao Te Ching), tai chi, meditation, etc.

I’m not saying that aesthetics trumps rationality, any more than I think that Beethoven trumps biology. Religious expression, for me, just has a lot more in common with Beethoven than with biology, a lot more with Ravi Shankar than with physics...

* Zen is non-theistic, and is my “root,” so to speak. Although I follow the perennial philosophy through various religious forms, if you think “Zen,” you’ll pretty well have me pegged.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
it would be an ENORMOUS coincidence ......

The real issue is a clear lack of understanding of statistics and probability. In a random system, any possible outcome is highly unlikely. In fact the more possibilities you have the more unlikely any particular outcome becomes. So, for example by the same logic the probability that you would post that post in exactly those words is such an ENORMOUS coincidence that it is clear evidence that God was directing your every action up until that exact point and made sure that you typed ever letter in exactly the right way.
There are billions of stars in each of billions of Galaxies. Surely if God made it all for humans he would have put habitable planets around each star and humans on each of those planets. But then again maybe heaven would get overpopulated......

Originally posted by jammer
Good one .. I think.

Except I like cheeseburgers therefore don't care f-all for a cows rights. Same with chickens, gonna kill and eat 'em, steal there eggs too.

God put 'em here for me .. I believe that

I believe that god put jammer on the Earth so that I could feel smarter than at least one other human being.