Does God Exist?

[Chesso 0]

Besides, I don't need to see myself born, iv'e seen others born and they turn out like me, proof enough me thinks.But I don't see god crawling out from under a rock..... sorry it just doesn't happen.

[Eternal_Bliss 0]

Hii Everyone, First I will like to ask everyone who is reading this post that what is their defination of GOD.Is it the same which the religious books potray, or they have their own unike view on it,First we should make it clear in our mind WHO GOD IS ? or rather WHAT GOD IS ? Is GOD like a SUPERMAN with all his/her power (Here I am saying both his and her as no one can say what is the gender of GOD, CAN ANYONE???? ) ORIs GOD the substance that is present all around us, or the laws of physics (which we all have to obey like the three laws of motion which was given by Newton ) For me GOD is the laws of the universe which we all are bound to follow rather than the someone all powerfull sitting in the heaven and waiting for us to die so that he/she can send us to Heaven/Hell depending on what are our deeds.The concept of heaven or hell was only created so that people will be good to others and the society would run smoothly........ Thanx

[abartar 0]

I have never seen any post continuously active for that long....almost 1.5 months. Isn't it amazing how we start debating endlessly on topics which we feel are not true but still we keep them alive.....Most of us have said that God does not exists but we take all the pains and do write it.Let's try to keep other technical topics alive on the forum the same way we do these topics on debatable issues....

[DrK3055A 0]

I have never seen any post continuously active for that long....almost 1.5 months. Isn't it amazing how we start debating endlessly on topics which we feel are not true but still we keep them alive.....
Most of us have said that God does not exists but we take all the pains and do write it.

Let's try to keep other technical topics alive on the forum the same way we do these topics on debatable issues....

I tried to keep alive the topic about "BrainF*ck" (Programming General->Other Languages), but i think it didn't become quite popular, not many BF programmers around this place, LOL.

[paralizedfish 0]

Does God exist?God is a concept developed to explain something unexplainable. Do I think that god is some parently diety wagging his finger at me from centuries ago, warning me not to screw the neighbors wife or keep kosher or eat before sunset on ramadan respectively. Absolutely not.Now, I'm not suggesting that "god" doesn't exist. Just not how we see him\her or it. You know that saying, "man was created in god's image"?scratch that, reverse it..."god was created in man's image"That's the truth. The bible didn't come from a beam of light descending from heaven. No religion came from any deity, it's all be WRITTEN by PEOPLE! Plain and simple fact. The oldest existing MAJOR religion (if major religion is considered Christianity, Judiasm & Muslim) is the Jewish religion. Christianity comes from Judaism (Jesus was a jew people) and the Muslim faith also. In fact, Jewish and Muslim beliefs are SO intertwined that they HAVE THE SAME HOLY LAND! Hence, all the problems we are seeing in the middle east.But that's not to say that Jews are on to something that others aren't. There's nothing particularly special about the Jewish religion, as Muslim and Christian faiths, have more or less the same pros and cons. I personally am not a massive fan of certain Christian denomentations, but, that's beside the point.The point in fact is, religion is a good metaphor. Which is what this "God" is... ...simply a metaphor.

[mitchellmckain 0]

1. can you prove that you were born?

Precious little can be proven and most of it is in mathematics, and one of those things that can be proven, ironically enough, is that we cannot prove that mathematics itself is consistent (Godel's proof). No we live by faith not by proof. Even the atheist lives by the faith that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Why dows not the same rule applies for a human?

So you are saying that IF God exists and IF God created us and IF God does not tell us directly that He exists, then God exists even though we do not know it?

3. humanity always had this discussion that if God exists or not.

Which goes to show that the question "Does God exist?" is the wrong question. The question is, when we are talking about God, what exactly are we really talking about? Is it an idea without substance or substance about which we really have no idea?

Hii Everyone, First I will like to ask everyone who is reading this post that what is their defination of GOD.

Well first of all I think there is some confusion of the questions of the definition of God and the nature of God, which is an especially important distinction when we are talking about something we know so little about. The definition of God includes the required characteristics for an identification of this being as God, while the nature of God may only be something which we speculate about.

Suppose we meet a talking cricket who claims to be God, what questions shall we ask this creature to acertain whether this claim has any truth to it, assuming that the cricket answers our questions truthfully in an absolute sense and not just according to his own knowledge and understanding? This query may help us to isolate what is actually a definition of God.

The key question it seems to me is whether the answers to our questions of this cricket leaves us looking elsewhere for God or not. Since we usually think of God in terms of origins, the question of the orgin of God himself is a troubling one. So if we ask the cricket how he came to exist, answers like "he has always existed" that leave us looking no farther will work, while answers like "I don't know" or "I came into being in a cosmic explosion", that just lead to more questions would be a bit troubling.

Some questions have to do with how we relate to God. If God is our moral compass then ambivalence and amorality on the part of this cricket would tend to leave us looking for a replacement to say the very least. If God is our explanation of our own being or the universe, then the cricket's denial of responsibility for the existence of the universe or ourselves would have us looking elsewhere.

For me GOD is the laws of the universe which we all are bound to follow rather than the someone all powerfull sitting in the heaven and waiting for us to die so that he/she can send us to Heaven/Hell depending on what are our deeds.

The laws of the universe are something I would seek to conquer with my understanding and power and therefore bears no resemblance to anything I would call God. If an explanation for everything was essential to your definition of God then I can understand your identification, but since I do not look to God for the explanation of everything then this identification does not work for me at all. As for the ultimate judge, I find no merit in this conception either for it seems to me that an autonomous natural law works far better as ultimate judge than a being who must weigh the worth of each of us individually. I cannot believe in hell as an eternal punishment for it makes no sense. Punishment is for behavior modification so an eternal punishment is an obvious failure. But as an inevitable consequence of our choices, hell is not only reasonable, but it is quite visible to me in the way some people think and choose to live their lives.

The concept of heaven or hell was only created so that people will be good to others and the society would run smoothly........

Yes! But created by who?????? Heh he heh.....
Edited October 30, 2006 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[Chesso 0]

Why would we live on faith that the sun comes up tomorrow? We see it come up and go down everyday...... (so we know it does).If it doesn't, well something up isn't it lol.

[CaptainRon 0]

mitchellmckain, you seem to believe your religion, and still name-call others... strange man... take a rest buddy.To be very frank, whatever you said about Krishna and his very little similarrity to a God, I must frankly admit, as a kid even I thought so. But with time, and with experience in reading Gita, I learned who Krishna really was. What Gita really meant. Once you are acquainted to the Gita's term of 'Moh Maya' to define this world, you will realise how 1000 wives and 'fight for right' actually fits into the picture. You will need to understand the concept of the Yugas. Just getting a 4 liner on Krishna, doesn't help in understanding him or his preachings.About getting converts, I must tell you that thousands of Americans and Europeans come to India every year to become a devotee of Lord Krishna, and if ever Hinduism had the concept of converting, they would have done so. So better get the facts straight before actually blabbing out stuff about others.I guess you are the only one who is on a thrash-match with just anyone here... so take a break and if you really believe in God, get to follow his path. Jabbering out here won't do much good.I don't know what you got taught of Hinduism, or Islam or any other religion, or if ever you got taught, you need to go home and do your homework on actually learning more about them instead of jumping around with your "I-speak-sense" attitude.And dare not insult any group or religion or name-tease one, just the way you did back here. Go chill and listen to the song called Govinda by Kula Shaker (a british band) and get a sense of Hare-krishnas.

[mitchellmckain 0]

mitchellmckain, you seem to believe your religion, and still name-call others... strange man... take a rest buddy.
I guess you are the only one who is on a thrash-match with just anyone here... so take a break and if you really believe in God, get to follow his path. Jabbering out here won't do much good.

Well, what a belated response to such an old post since this clearly has nothing to do with anything recent. It is strange since you would have had to go looking for it, ignoring the recent posts. I wonder why?

But why do you say this? Do you equate the expression of any opinion contrary to your own to name-calling and thrash matching? I have only disagreed with you and Eternal-Bliss (if you are in fact two different people). What name have I called either of you? I have no problem with other religions. I greatly enjoy them. I love and defend the diversity of mankind. I only have contempt for those who force their religion onto other people, deny religious freedom, or show intolerance of the diversity of mankind.

But as much as I love and enjoy the diversity of mankind I am not ecclectic. I have my own religious beliefs, and I am free to express them as much as anyone else.

Just getting a 4 liner on Krishna, doesn't help in understanding him or his preachings.

No, but it does help me decide whether I want to understand him or his preachings. Why should I be an expert on this guy who lived 3000 BC? You consider him significant and I do not. Why should I?

I don't know what you got taught of Hinduism, or Islam or any other religion, or if ever you got taught, you need to go home and do your homework on actually learning more about them instead of jumping around with your "I-speak-sense" attitude.

So the fact that I speak sense offends you? What can I say? Why should I fully understand Hinduism or Islam? I do know enough to see that you represent niether. Your indoctrination into your religion makes you no expert on these religions either, any more than it makes you an expert on Christianity. Your religion simply chops them up into neat little pieces so you can fit them into your religion's ideolgy. Fine. You are welcome to your point of view just as the Bahai and the Moonies are welcome to theirs. But I am not picking a fight by saying that your characterization of my religion is inaccurate anymore than you are picking a fight when you correct my charaterization of your religion. I shall honestly and whole heartedly acknowledge your authority in regards to your religion as long as you recognize my authority in regards to mine. And no I am not claiming to be THE authority on Christianity, but only a greater authority that any member of another religion. I think it is highly improper and intolerant for a member of one religion to claim, to a member of another, expertise in their religion, no matter how much they have studied it, and completely rude when they haven't studied it at all.

And dare not insult any group or religion or name-tease one, just the way you did back here. Go chill and listen to the song called Govinda by Kula Shaker (a british band) and get a sense of Hare-krishnas.

Show me where I have insulted any group or religion or name-teased and I shall apologize.

You and/or Eternal_Bliss are the representative(s) of the Hari Krishnas so you can share your sense of them all you want.
Edited October 30, 2006 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[mitchellmckain 0]

That's the truth. The bible didn't come from a beam of light descending from heaven. No religion came from any deity, it's all be WRITTEN by PEOPLE! Plain and simple fact. The oldest existing MAJOR religion (if major religion is considered Christianity, Judiasm & Muslim) is the Jewish religion. Christianity comes from Judaism (Jesus was a jew people) and the Muslim faith also. In fact, Jewish and Muslim beliefs are SO intertwined that they HAVE THE SAME HOLY LAND! Hence, all the problems we are seeing in the middle east.

But why do you not consider Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism and Sikhism to be major religions? These all have more adherents than Judaism. Is it because you wanted to call Judaism the oldest when Hinduism is 500 to 2000 years older? I have lumped Taoism, Confusionism and Chinese traditional religion under the name Taoism because before the cutural revolution, Taoism was one of the strongest institutions in China, but then its temples and clergy were destroyed and its distinctiveness was lost. But the writings and teachings of Taoism remain influential and respected throughout the world.

I, in fact, think that the oldest religions in the world are the shamanistic religions, that venerate nature and human ancestors, because it is so widespread including Chinese and Korean traditional religion, Shinto, Native American, African and Austrailan relgious belief, as well as the older pagan religions of Europe that were wiped out (and partially absorbed) by Christianity.

[CaptainRon 0]

I have only disagreed with you and Eternal-Bliss (if you are in fact two different people). What name have I called either of you?

Your expression of such comical doubt about me and Eternal_Bliss sure puts you in a weirdo category. For your information, there are 1 Billion Hindus on this planet, and is it not possible for two of them to be on this board? Matter of factly the owner is also one. There are a dozen others who do not want to enter this religious feud.

I have no problem with other religions. I greatly enjoy them. I love and defend the diversity of mankind. I only have contempt for those who force their religion onto other people, deny religious freedom, or show intolerance of the diversity of mankind.

No one's forcing anyone to any religion. If you feel so, report it to the moderator.

No, but it does help me decide whether I want to understand him or his preachings. Why should I be an expert on this guy who lived 3000 BC? You consider him significant and I do not. Why should I?

There is difference in understanding the preachings and challenging them. You were challenging them, by saying things about Krishna. You are not allowed to say anything false about Krishna OR ANY OTHER HOLY FIGURE over here. Be it Christ, or Prophet or Buddha. I don't challenge the holiness of Christ and neither of Prophet and neither shall I ever. There are billions who believe them, and even if I ever have doubt, I will keep it to myself instead of saying on a public bulletin board.

So the fact that I speak sense offends you? What can I say? Why should I fully understand Hinduism or Islam?

urgh...! There is a difference in "I speak sense" and "I speak sense attitude" !!! and with the above line, you just reinforced my statement.

You and/or Eternal_Bliss are the representative(s) of the Hari Krishnas so you can share your sense of them all you want.

So are grouping me and Eternal_Bliss throughout, just because we belong to the same ethnic group?

[Chesso 0]

What's wrong with challenging it lol, they mostly challenge the opposite from my experience (generally) so why not the other way around, fair is fair right .

[mitchellmckain 0]

So are grouping me and Eternal_Bliss throughout, just because we belong to the same ethnic group?

How should I have known what ethnic group you belong to? I thought you two were the same person because you reacted so similarly. But that you are of the same culture makes sense of this too. It also explains some of the reactions we have to each other's posts as some kind of cultural dissonance. Speaking sensibly is an ideal we of the west aim for, and your distaste for it triggers my own sense of you being wierd, and this is typical of a clash between cultures. So we live and begin to learn. Hmmmm....

There is difference in understanding the preachings and challenging them. You were challenging them, by saying things about Krishna. You are not allowed to say anything false about Krishna OR ANY OTHER HOLY FIGURE over here. Be it Christ, or Prophet or Buddha. I don't challenge the holiness of Christ and neither of Prophet and neither shall I ever. There are billions who believe them, and even if I ever have doubt, I will keep it to myself instead of saying on a public bulletin board.

What's wrong with challenging it lol, they mostly challenge the opposite from my experience (generally) so why not the other way around, fair is fair right .

No, CaptainRon has a point here, though it is difficult for us to see. I believe He is pointing to a different kind of religious peace than we have in the west and such would certainly make sense in a place like India. At least, I begin to see some kind of self-consistency in it. In the west we respect the right of others to their belief and the freedom to speak these beliefs, but we have several difficulties. To deal with the potential disruption cause by inter-religious bickering we selectively ban this "freedom of speech" somewhat in the work place and in schools. And when it comes to people like Nazis, who have only a message of hate, we feel a bit conflicted in deciding how to handle them.

Certainly if you invite someone over to dinner then knowing their belief you would attempt not to give offense even if it meant being quiet about things that you believe. Otherwise what result could you expect, except that your guest would storm out of your house offended. We do not concieve of the public arena in this manner. In the west, our highest ideal is truth rather than harmony, and we see the public arena as the place for debate not politeness. And by our rather difficult ideal, we defend the right of these Nazi extremists to speak their point of view in public even though many of us are strongly tempted to shoot them as well.

I have never been to India, so I can only guess, but the words of our friends here make me suspect that India is somewhat different. I guess it is possible that the public arena in India is the same as welcoming a guest at your home. I am not agreeing with it, for I think it has problems of its own. I wonder if this supression of feelings in this manner does not lead to the kind of explosive violence that we have seen in India. And what if a man believes himself to be God? In the west, we can respect his right to believe so as long as he respects our right to disagree. Inviting such a person over to your house and trying to avoid giving offense may be too much of a burden for most people of the west to bear.

urgh...! There is a difference in "I speak sense" and "I speak sense attitude" !!! and with the above line, you just reinforced my statement.

In light of the above, I think I begin to understand. I think what you object to is a western tradition that we have from ancient Greece called rhetoric. Where we try to convince the jury or bystanders that our point of view is the reasonable one. There is little relationship between this rhetoric and the kind of politeness which you seem to see as appropriate for the public arena. The funny thing is that the internet forum has become an even more exaggerated version of the western ideal of the public arena as the place for debate and rhetoric. In any case, it seems that although I am not consciously engaging in debate, my manner of expression still gives you the impression of rhetoric. You could also call it, delight in my own cleverness, which has become so inseperable from my effort to express myself and be understood that I am not sure it is even possible for me to do otherwise.

So perhaps what you wish to say is something like, "let's forget the rhetoric and cleverness, and try to understand each others religious point of view in the interest of communication." Communication is a respected ideal in the west even if its tradition is newer and weaker than that of debate. But I don't think this can work unless one is careful to include phrases like, "I think that" or "I believe" in ones statement of belief. It may seem redundant to you, but in the west, a statement of belief as if it were a matter of fact is generally taken as a challenge to a debate. No doubt we will still find each others way of expressing ourselves a bit grating but perhaps awareness of the reality will help us to achieve some degree of toleration.

I hope this helps.
Edited October 31, 2006 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[Eternal_Bliss 0]

Hii, Everyone .mitchellmckain just check out the post no. 50 and 51 of this topic .You will get to see that there was a question asked by CaptainRon which I dutifully replied. Don't you think that its kinda weird that the same guy can asks a question and then replies to it.Does it makes any sense ?? Not to me at least....I and CaptainRon may have a similarity in the point of veiw on some of the points in this topic but there may be differences on other things. And I dont know what ethinic group CaptainRon belongs to, so I cant really say if we are of the same ethinic group. AND regarding INDIA I want to make it clear that INDIA is the largest democratic country in the whole world and also that its a secular country and everyone can express his/her own veiw (unlike many of the countries of middle east)....

[mitchellmckain 0]

Hii, Everyone .mitchellmckain just check out the post no. 50 and 51 of this topic .You will get to see that there was a question asked by CaptainRon which I dutifully replied. Don't you think that its kinda weird that the same guy can asks a question and then replies to it.Does it makes any sense ?? Not to me at least....

 

I have been searching through the thread to find out where this impression of similarity came from.

 

And it was the following post, suddenly making irrational personal comments in the midst of a discussion.

 

IT seems to me U ARE too preocupied by ur own Ideas to understand others.......UR cup of the mind is already full so U cannot take any more( no wonder !!!!!)

 

CaptainRon did the same thing both before and after yours, although now that I compare them side by side I would have to admit that his/her are a bit more irrational than yours. Although yours was every bit as unjustified for the reasons I have already explained. My point was not that you were proselytizing but that taking offense at my having my own definite ideas makes it sound like you are, for this is exactly the kind of thing I have heard from visiting missionaries.

 

Hey mitchellmckain sorry but you sound so frustrated of life... you surely need a God to make you happy

 

mitchellmckain, you seem to believe your religion, and still name-call others... strange man... take a rest buddy.

...

I guess you are the only one who is on a thrash-match with just anyone here..

 

After calling CaptainRon on the first one, it turns out that his/her reason was even more irrational. He/her says "I called u frustrated because u were calling people extremists", since I was actually responding to someone else calling people extremists and refuting it, this reason is really bizzare. The second instance was even more absurd, since he/she is doing in this post what he accuses me of doing. He/she goes back to posts a month back in order to turn that discussion into a person attack derailing the current discussion and then he/she accuses me of engaging in a "thrash mash". As far as I can tell, with these outrageious personal comments, it is I who have been subjected to the closest thing to name-calling in this thread and it is he/she that insists on turning this discussion into a "thrash mash". I have sincerely been puzzled as to the reason for all this, which is why I attempted to explain this as a cultural thing in my last thread, while ignoring the continuing abuse coming from CaptainRon. Of course, it was just a shot in the dark, so any light you can shed on this (including confirmation or denial of my suggestions) would be appreciated.

 

I and CaptainRon may have a similarity in the point of veiw on some of the points in this topic but there may be differences on other things. And I dont know what ethinic group CaptainRon belongs to, so I cant really say if we are of the same ethinic group. AND regarding INDIA I want to make it clear that INDIA is the largest democratic country in the whole world and also that its a secular country and everyone can express his/her own veiw (unlike many of the countries of middle east)....

 

Well him/her pulling the race card for no reason could be considered typical of him/her. I am not ignorant of modern history, but government and the cultural attitudes of society are two different things. But since as I said, I have not been to India, my guesses are a shot in the dark.

 

All in all, since we really do not know that much about each other personally, would you not agree that personal comments are, at least, not helpful and quite likely to be abrasive and insulting? I would suggest that if we are inclined to wonder about the personal character of another poster, we could simply send them a PM asking them. For speaking of rhetoric, as I have, making personal comments like this is worst sort of tactic of rhetoric there is.

Edited November 1, 2006 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)