The existence - or lack of - a God is one of humanity's fundamental questions. Since the first birth, the first sunrise, the first death, humans have sought to explain the world around them. The whole of human existence, in the end, comes down to this: Is there a God?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Absolutely Clear?
- From Rabbi Jeret
By Rabbi Jeret - Spiritual Leader, Congregation Ner Tamid
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No scientific evidence
If we are talking about personal, superpowered God then it's not hard to tell without doubts - such God(s) does not exist. (Just like does not exist Earth in center of the Universe and everything else orbits around it.) And any atheist will stick to this statement until science prove otherwise.
- ctrnz
August 25, 2008 6:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
.
Exactly
- Logically Inclined
September 1, 2008 10:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Science and Creation
Science deals only with the creation. It cannot deal with the creator because the creator exists outside the box of creation that science is trapped within.
The best science can do is say once there was a "big bang", something happened and a bunch of energy exploded into what we know as reality and cooled and formed the universe and created laws of physics that we have discovered.
Science cannot tell us what went bang nor why it went bang.
- james1951
June 28, 2009 11:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The box
It is how you look at it. Science can deal with creator in psyholigical sense. Why we (humans) created creator (deities) in the first place. Also any school of philosophy takes chances on idea of creator as such.
However science may tell you some day in the future why there was big bang and what caused it. Like science told us that lighting is not an act of God and Earth is not the center of Universe. Scary thing to do is to do nothing in fields of science and teach our childrens scary stories about
gnomes and so on.
Even if we are in some kind of box and Creator is out of it - then he also can't interact with us.
But anything what gets into the box can be in some way or another observed by us and by our scientists as well. It's simple.
- ctrnz
July 1, 2009 11:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God is a hypothesis
When Laplace published his theory of the formation of the Solar System, Napoleon Bonaparte asked him where God fit into his theory. Laplace replied, "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis."
The answer to your objection should be obvious to logicians: no, it is not absolutely clear that there is no god. Nor is it absolutely clear that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster or celestial teapot.
The answer to "Is there a God?" cannot be answered definitively, period. Therefore the atheist position is and must be "[with the same likeliness that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster] there is no god."
- h3h
September 1, 2008 3:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God is
Flying Spaghetti monsters make no sense, the possible existence of a Creator and speculation on ITS nature makes sense. Equating God.s existence to fantastical creations of the irrational is poor argumentation. Because we cannot prove a negative does not mean that, within the Laws of Nature and Physics, there is no God per se. We will never know for sure so atheists hold to the No hypothesis. Maybe we should all be agnostics...we simply do not know nor will we ever know.
- weedonald
September 3, 2008 5:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God is still a hypothesis not a theory
Yes, but the null position should still be the atheist position, not the agnostic position. Fantastic claims, whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be His name, amen) or a God, who created the Universe, exist, require fantastic evidence. Particularly when you claim that God created a Universe 14.5 billion years ago, to be at least 26 billion light years across 13 billion years ago (because the furthest galaxy we can see now is 13 billion light years away, and the light from there has therefore taken 13 billion years to get here), with about 10,000 billion billion stars, just for the benefit of humans on a tiny speck of rock orbiting a totally insignificant star. And yet this God is still around, listening to the prayers of his believers, and occasionally granting but usually ignoring them, without ever actually giving any proof of his existence. I expect that when I press the submit button, if there is a God, I will be instantly electrocuted for blasphemy.
- bachfiend
September 4, 2008 3:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
well if..
God created a earth with just 1 sun and no other stars, would it be a little lame? would you think it more likely or less likely that there be an intelligent creator? i'm thinking you're sugguesting that it would be more likely. now why would you think it more likely that a lame God exists?
these arguments are illogical and nonsensical, and you should realize this. The fact is they are unintelligent, arrogant, and 'presumptions.'
If you look at the Bible, what is stressed is wisdom, and honesty and humility.. here you lack all three.
- jxzac April 3, 2009 2:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
that's the point too.
Athiest man is not profound wisdom. To say to a person that there is the here and now.. it needs not be said. To see if you are humble and honest, and wise. those are substantial. Those elements are profound. How they would not exist without the greater essence. that is profound. blessed are those who believed and did not see.
- jxzac April 3, 2009 2:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pretty lame explanation
Well, that's a pretty lame explanation. Who is god trying to impress, himself or us, by creating a universe with billions of galaxies. Just one, the Milky Way, with its 200 to 400 billion stars, would have been impressive enough, particularly since we only realised there were more than one galaxy only in the early 20th century, and we are most unlikely (what with Einstein's special theory of relativity, of even visiting the nearest star (other than the sun). Whatever good qualities you find in the bible (and I admit Proverbs generally is pretty good), it is still a pretty shoddy piece of fiction. I don't know how you can seriously claim your work of fiction is any truer that the sacred texts of any other religion that humans have made up.
- bachfiend
April 3, 2009 5:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, but the null position should still be the atheist position,
Are you kidding me?
Does that mean that PLuto did not exist until science discovered it?
Come on that is just silly. Of course the agnostic position should be the null position, because we just don't know.
But I am on the yes side because I have defined God in such a way as to be quite confident of Gods existence not as a physical entity but as a spirit of truth and righteousness
- james1951
June 28, 2009 11:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Whats wrong with God being an hypothesis
Science is an hypothesis as well. It is based on the perception that the universe is limited to what we can sense with our 5 senses and instrumentation designed to augment those five senses.
Right now there are thousands of radio and tv and wireless signals going past my head but I cant see or hear or even feel them because i dont have the receiver turned on or tuned to the proper frequency. But regardless of that those signals are there. WHat else is there that I simply do not have a receiver for or am not tuned into. Is there a "spirit of truth and righteousness" that requires a mind that can receive it and a mind that is tuned into the frequency it broadcasts on?
Many people have a "gut feeling" about what is right and wrong, where does it come from. Last nights Spaghetti :-)
Or is there a "spirit of truth and righteousness" is there a concious or subconcious concience that is more than just what we have reasoned from our life experience to be the correct thing to do. We are really good at justifying what we some how know is wrong. IMHO
- james1951
June 28, 2009 11:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Testability
To be a true hypothesis you have to be able to devise experiments by which you can demonstrate if it is correct or not.
Radio waves (tv and wireless signals are all in the radio spectrum) cannot be seen, but can be detected and proven to exist.
- MrBook
July 7, 2009 6:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Existence detection
They cannot be proven to exist if
1. You do not have instrumentation that can detect them and and relay that information in a manner that our 5 senses can sense them.
2. If you do not have that instrumentation tuned into the frequency those energy signals are transmitting on.
3. There may be many other energy waves than radio tv infra red ultra violet light rays. Thought waves for example, we cannot even read thought waves who, who knows what other energy signals are out there that we simply cannot detect withn our current detection facilities.
Just because you don't know its there does not mean it doesn't exist.
- james1951
July 7, 2009 8:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
que?
"
1. You do not have instrumentation that can detect them and and relay that information in a manner that our 5 senses can sense them.
"
yes, that is true... however considering that we know that there are radio broadcasts going on near by (even though I do not have my cell phone on me I know that it gets a signal where I am sitting) I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that there are radio waves passing through me right now.
"
2. If you do not have that instrumentation tuned into the frequency those energy signals are transmitting on.
"
That is a strange way to put it... but again, yes.
"
3. There may be many other energy waves than radio tv infra red ultra violet light rays.
"
getting stranger now, but also true... there are sound waves to consider for one.
"
Thought waves for example, we cannot even read thought waves
"
Que? It depends on what you mean by 'Thought Waves'... if you are talking about the frequency of electrical signals traveling through the brain you are correct in that we cannot 'read' them. We can detect them but we cannot interpret them.
"
who knows what other energy signals are out there that we simply cannot detect withn our current detection facilities.
"
Also true, however that reasoning allows for an infinite number of possibilities... We 'could' be organic robots controlled by tachyon signals being projected from Saturn.
"
Just because you don't know its there does not mean it doesn't exist.
"
Can't the same thing be said for Unicorns and underwear gnomes?
- MrBook
July 9, 2009 6:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Odd
An odd objection, seeing as your argument is God exists.
- Blue Linchpin
December 16, 2008 12:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree
It is an assertion, not an argument. Regardless of whether one is open to the possiblity of God's existence, it is quite a stretch to assert that it is clear that a being with those god -like characteristics does not exist.
- ghanastudent
May 17, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A stretch?
Is it not also quite a stretch to assert that something of that nature DOES exist?
Any concept could be concocted and then defended on the basis of insufficient evidence to the contrary, but without evidence backing said concoction (save for gaps in human understanding), what's to say that it's valid or even worth considering?
- MisterPD
July 17, 2009 8:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Doubt is only relevant in the context of a non-apparent belief
I never doubt that there is no tooth fairy.
I never doubt that there is ground beneath my feet.
Similarly, I never doubt that this hugely imaginative " god " thing is an outright fabrication.
Doubt doesn't happen in situations where the right answer is so blindingly obvious that the only way around the truth is imaginative fabrication.
- MisterPD
July 17, 2009 8:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.