Do you believe in God?

Discuss literature (e.g. books, newspapers), educational studies (getting help or opinions on homework or an essay), and philosophy.

Do you believe in God?

Yes
248
50%
No
173
35%
Other
77
15%
 
Total votes : 498

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby SunXia » Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:46 am

See when people say that to me I am reminded that I used to believe that but then there was no proof that my feelings meant God. When I ask people how they know that warm feeling was God its "Because I know." Just so illogical to me.

Plus we are always told God is good but no I am sorry why create a world with suffering. "God works in mysterious ways" just does not cut it for me.

Epicurus hit the nail on the head for me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
If becoming enlightened or an intellectual means I must become arrogant and coldly cynical about the world around me then I'd gladly remain a fool for the rest of my life!!

I'm Out4Marriage!!!Are You??

It is a CHOICE!!
User avatar
SunXia
Warrior Princess
Warrior Princess
 
Posts: 6568
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Keeping Evils from this world at bay...with a smile!!

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby Jackrob » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:39 am

Yes, I have full faith on God. And I always believe there has someone who always moderates us. We are responsible both for good and bad work.
Jackrob
Tyro
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby Li_Shengsun » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:23 pm

I do believe in God, i believe He created heavens and earths with all the beings live in it. And we should give our thanks to Him for allowing us to live within His magnificent creation. Everything moves within a cycle of life and renewal, and greater good.

Honestly, i hated one of His creation called 'religions' and He should intervene when this 'religion' divided into many things. 'religions' is what made mankind divided, 'religions' brings destruction to His creation, 'religions' is what made people hate each other.
Everyone has flaws. It's a matter of finding the ones you can live with.
Li_Shengsun
Apprentice
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:35 am

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby PyroMystic » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:05 am

SunXia wrote:See when people say that to me I am reminded that I used to believe that but then there was no proof that my feelings meant God. When I ask people how they know that warm feeling was God its "Because I know." Just so illogical to me.

Plus we are always told God is good but no I am sorry why create a world with suffering. "God works in mysterious ways" just does not cut it for me.

Epicurus hit the nail on the head for me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Not being a jerk but the intellectual problem of evil has been disapproved from time to time (the newest, and perhaps the most well-known answer is Alvin Plantinga's "Free Will Defense" in God, Freedom, and Evil). What you probably mean is the emotional problem of evil which is an entirely different question. Sure, even the latter could use Epicurus' argument but it is false to equate the two.

As for me, I always think that the skeptics are doing a pretty bad job at doubting only supernatural thing. I mean, if you want to doubt, then might as well be a real full-fledged skeptic like Descartes (who even doubt his own existence before the "Cogito ergo sum"). I mean, you can always doubt your own sense experience so don't stop at God or some other supernatural thing. Man up, be a consistent skeptics, and be a solipsist.
忍辱负重 ~ rěn rǔ fù zhòng
||endure humiliation, bear burden||
《三国志 · 吴书 · 陸遜传 》
PyroMystic
Apprentice
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:50 am

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby SunXia » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:38 pm

Let's start this off by saying I do not believe, as nobody has provided sufficient proof to me at all. All the "powerful" things I was told happened have either a scientific explanation OR can't be proven either way. So my place is the problem of "Evil" does not equate to my belief or justify my belief. Just helps cement that if he existed in the form of the Bible or any other religious texts ONLY THEN does Epicurus come into play.

Not being a jerk but the intellectual problem of evil has been disapproved from time to time (the newest, and perhaps the most well-known answer is Alvin Plantinga's "Free Will Defense" in God, Freedom, and Evil). What you probably mean is the emotional problem of evil which is an entirely different question. Sure, even the latter could use Epicurus' argument but it is false to equate the two.


Not being a jerk but thats not "disapproved" that's merely an argument against the idea. If God is Omnipotent, all powerful then he should be able to do anything but Plantinga puts limits on him so no he's not Omnipotent if he exists with limits. Omnipotent isn't "All-powerful but with few limitations" its unlimited power. Tries to compare a world without evil to a square circle being created. Not even close to the same thing.

"Can't be expected.." Why why can't he be expected he is meant to be all-powerful. (If he exists) Either he's all powerful or he's not.

The very fact of the matter is that Christians in this day in age STILL say stuff like "God is good" when something good happens like a lost relative is found (by people) or a relative has successful surgery (again by people). YET when something bad happens its "God works in mysterious ways." It's a cop out. And Epicurus hits the nail on the head for me if we are to entertain the idea that he is even there to begin with.

As for me, I always think that the skeptics are doing a pretty bad job at doubting only supernatural thing.

There is no "Job" for Atheists. It is the job for Theists to convince us that God exists. They have the burden of proof, they make the claim so convince me. But they can't because they have no proof beyond a book written by men in an age when Human understanding of the world was limited.

I mean, if you want to doubt, then might as well be a real full-fledged skeptic like Descartes (who even doubt his own existence before the "Cogito ergo sum"). I mean, you can always doubt your own sense experience so don't stop at God or some other supernatural thing. Man up, be a consistent skeptics, and be a solipsist.


So you are basically saying my belief system or lack of belief system isn't valid because I should doubt I exist? I mean you are throwing around labels here that I am a skeptic when no I am a Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual Skeptic, I am Skeptical of claims that have not and can not be proven because they are so fantastical to begin with.

It is no different if someone claimed to me they saw a Leprechaun or a Banshee, prove it. Since there is no physical evidence that they exist I won't "believe" without proof simply because I a told to. I am also not going to jump at "I don't exist" because you want to try and dismiss my values.
If becoming enlightened or an intellectual means I must become arrogant and coldly cynical about the world around me then I'd gladly remain a fool for the rest of my life!!

I'm Out4Marriage!!!Are You??

It is a CHOICE!!
User avatar
SunXia
Warrior Princess
Warrior Princess
 
Posts: 6568
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Keeping Evils from this world at bay...with a smile!!

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby PyroMystic » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:49 pm

Okay I get what you said. You believe that God doesn't exist because you have seen no actual proof. But then the most logical position is then not atheism but agnosticism.

Now problem of evil is generally known to be a knock-down argument FOR the non-existence of God. So there might be more reason to be an atheist that agnosticism, which I agree. But the problem is that this argument has been disapproved. So what I'm trying to say is that the disapproving of problem of evil does NOT lead one to be theist, but leads to agnosticism.

Not being a jerk but thats not "disapproved" that's merely an argument against the idea. If God is Omnipotent, all powerful then he should be able to do anything but Plantinga puts limits on him so no he's not Omnipotent if he exists with limits. Omnipotent isn't "All-powerful but with few limitations" its unlimited power. Tries to compare a world without evil to a square circle being created. Not even close to the same thing.

But this is simply a wrong definition of Omnipotence. Being omnipotent means having the capacity of doing anything (1) THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE (2) AS A PERFECT BEING.
On the first point: can God create a square-circle? Can god create a married bachelor? Can God make 2+2=5? Can God make a contradiction true? No, absolutely not. And God is not any less powerful if He can't do something that is logically impossible
On the second point: can God scratch his head? Can God sleep? Can God change the past? Well, as an omnipotent being he ought to be able to do it. But God is a perfect being and a perfect being need not scratch his head in confusion, sleep to recuperate his energy, or change the past because he has done some terrible mistake.
Now apply this to the problem of evil:
On the first point: He can't make creatures both free and non-free by giving them the capacity to do evil, but always make it impossible for them to actualize their evil.
On the second point? Why should God preserve creaturely freedom? Simply because he's an omnibenevolent God. If he take away creaturely freedom, that would not make him God. That would be a despot.

You said that comparing a square circle with a world without evil is not a good way to make his point, but I don't see you provide any reason why. Perhaps you'd say, "because a world without evil is CONCEIVABLE but a square circle is INCONCEIVABLE." Fair enough. But this is simply inadequate. It is comparing a world WITH CREATURELY FREEDOM but without evil and square circle, which is quite a good enough comparison.

There is no "Job" for Atheists. It is the job for Theists to convince us that God exists. They have the burden of proof, they make the claim so convince me. But they can't because they have no proof beyond a book written by men in an age when Human understanding of the world was limited.

Wait what? Why should theist convince atheist that God exist? It is not like an atheist government is oppresing theist to renounce their religion that the theist have to convince the atheist of their conviction (oh wait, that actually happened). No, it is the atheist who claimed that faith in God is unreasonable. It is the atheist who claimed that being a skeptic is the most neutral and intellectual position. It is the atheist that claim that the belief on God is merely "opium for people". It is the atheist who claimed that religion only brought bad things and it is atheism that advance science. Heck, it is atheists that claim themselves more intelligent than religious people JUST BECAUSE they are doing half-ass job on doubting and being skeptic.
So yeah. The burden of proof is on the atheist to convince theist that they are making a better metaphysical judgment than the theist.

You said that the theist "can't [convince you] because they have no proof beyond a book written by men in an age when Human understanding of the world was limited." Well, there are dozens argument for the existence of God. Too lazy to actually mention them.
Let us compare this with the atheists: They have the burden of proof to prove that their metaphysical judgment is better than mine theistic one. But they can't because they have no proof beyond reciting the old lame saying, "I can't see, touch, hear, and feel God. Therefore, God doesn't exist."
(okay, this might be a caricature. But really, atheists only give 1 argument FOR the non-existence of God: The Problem of Evil. The other argument is argument AGAINST the existence of God which, as I said, should make one an agnostic instead of a full-fledged atheist).

So you are basically saying my belief system or lack of belief system isn't valid because I should doubt I exist? I mean you are throwing around labels here that I am a skeptic when no I am a Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual Skeptic, I am Skeptical of claims that have not and can not be proven because they are so fantastical to begin with.

It is no different if someone claimed to me they saw a Leprechaun or a Banshee, prove it. Since there is no physical evidence that they exist I won't "believe" without proof simply because I a told to. I am also not going to jump at "I don't exist" because you want to try and dismiss my values.

I'm saying that your belief system is simply ungrounded. You deny the existence of supernatural but hold tight on the belief that your sense is reliable. Your claim that you're a Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual Skeptic is the proof of that. Why pick and choose?

Also, you claim that you are skeptical of claims that have not and cannot be proven because they are so fantastical to begin with. Fair enough. Now prove to me that you're an actual human being with a conscious mind and not a bot that is programmed to reply my post. I cannot see you, I cannot touch you, I cannot hear not feel you. Prove to me you're human.

Leprechaun and Banshee is supposed to be a physical being so asking for a physical proof is valid. But God is immaterial being so asking for a visible, material, physical evidence is not valid.

Now you're making this personal. I'm not trying not dismissing your values. Why should I? I just challenged your idea but it seems you're not open to any discussion? I'm not saying that you should imitate Descartes and believe that you do not exist. What I mean to say is that IF you think your belief system is right (and more intellectual) JUST BECAUSE you're skeptical of some things (Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual), then why not be even more right by being skeptical of everything, including your own existence? By this standard, Descartes is, I think, doing an infinetely better job at being skeptical than Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual
忍辱负重 ~ rěn rǔ fù zhòng
||endure humiliation, bear burden||
《三国志 · 吴书 · 陸遜传 》
PyroMystic
Apprentice
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:50 am

Previous

Return to Literature, Academics, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved