Does God Exist?

[Chesso 0]

What's wrong with using the word extremist anyway lol, it's what they are (people that are actually labeled that).It just means they take thins a little too far too heated, hence the word extreme(ist).

[CaptainRon 0]

mitchellmckain, I do understand the point now, and I must tell you the reason for it. Here in India, I have all sorts of people from all sorts of religions neighbouring me. Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Muslim and Jain mostly. No doubt Hinduism is the predominant religion but still having a look at recent as well as past clashes between Hindus and Muslims, which all usually started as verbal feuds, we all find it safer to respect each others religion regardless of the kind of practices.The "rhetoric" you say to have inherited from your Western background, will make me change the subject a bit and ask you to look truly into the history of West and India. The history talks of something called Proto-Indo-Europeans, who were a society prior to European and Indian civilizations, and later split to form todays West and India. The whole theory and concept is highly debated, but still what is surely evident is the common source of origin of these two societies. Here a word "Arya" is introduced, that the ancient Indians used to describe themselves in the Vedas. It is wittily derived that there was an Aryan race from which the two societies were derived. This is what lead to the tainted racial supremacy factor in Hitler's Germany, where they thought that they were the source of Aryan race. However, the two immediate derivatives of the Proto-Indo-European society were the Indians and the Greeks. The reason why I brought this out was to point to the common origin source of me and you, and hence your "probably" false derivation of "rhetoric" as an ancestral attribute. It is more of a present social derivation...

[mitchellmckain 0]

What's wrong with using the word extremist anyway lol, it's what they are (people that are actually labeled that).
It just means they take thins a little too far too heated, hence the word extreme(ist).

Well extremists like Eternal_Bliss, CaptainRon and myself are going to object to this. I consider myself a moderate, but I can take things pretty seriously in support of my moderate point of view, which makes me an extremist by your definition. Suffice to say that the term "extremist" is a very relative term, and most people feel strongly about something which they take very seriously relative to other people.

[mitchellmckain 0]

The "rhetoric" you say to have inherited from your Western background, will make me change the subject a bit and ask you to look truly into the history of West and India. The history talks of something called Proto-Indo-Europeans, who were a society prior to European and Indian civilizations, and later split to form todays West and India. The whole theory and concept is highly debated, but still what is surely evident is the common source of origin of these two societies. Here a word "Arya" is introduced, that the ancient Indians used to describe themselves in the Vedas. It is wittily derived that there was an Aryan race from which the two societies were derived. This is what lead to the tainted racial supremacy factor in Hitler's Germany, where they thought that they were the source of Aryan race. However, the two immediate derivatives of the Proto-Indo-European society were the Indians and the Greeks. The reason why I brought this out was to point to the common origin source of me and you, and hence your "probably" false derivation of "rhetoric" as an ancestral attribute. It is more of a present social derivation...

I am familiar with the linguistic/genetic connections and Hitler's crazy ideas, as well as the pretext used by the British to support their racist attitudes in India. The connection is very old and there is no reason to see any substantial link to culture and I certainly will not support the racist ideas, fostered by the British, that tries to make the lighter skinned Indians out to be superior to the darker skinned. In any case, there is no denying, that rhetoric is an invention of ancient Greek culture deriving largely from their practice of democracy.

Organized thought about rhetoric began in ancient Greece. Possibly, the first study about the power of language may be attributed to the philosopher Empedocles (d. ca. 444 BC), whose theories on human knowledge would provide a basis for many future rhetoricians. The first written manual is attributed to Corax and his pupil Tisias. Their work, as well as that of many of the early rhetoricians, grew out of the courts of law; Tisias, for example, is believed to have written judicial speeches that others delivered in the courts. Rhetoric was popularized in the 5th century BC by itinerant teachers known as sophists, the best known of whom were Protagoras (c.481-420 BC), Gorgias (c.483-376 BC), and Isocrates (436-338 BC).

Aristotle made a detailed analysis of rhetoric and contrasted as the antithesis of scientific thinking. The adoption of democracy and Western legal practices in India has no doubt made rhetoric a part of modern Indian life in the form of politics and courtroom dialogue, but there is no doubting that the practice of rhetoric has deeper roots in the West, especially in the US whose society was built from its practice nearly from scratch. This is not a matter of pride (let alone racial pride since I doubt I have any Greek ancestors). Rhetoric has often been considered a plague of Western society starting with the criticisms of Plato, for the distortions of truth and justice which it often fosters. There is no need to be defensive for I make no assumption that western culture is the be all and end all of modern society. I point out the cultural differences only to understand what we find so annoying about the way we express ourselves so that in understanding this we can communicate better.
Edited November 2, 2006 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[talktime 0]

Scientifically God doesn't exist. Science needs proof and there is no way you can prove his existence.God in an unknown entity to every human being but every one is looking to find him. To say that god exists because no one can prove he doesn't exist is not logical. By that logic anything can be bought to existence in this world. But to belief and faith in God is also natural. Belief and faith don't need logic. There are many advantages and disadvantages of concept of god. Fear of God make people act lawfully while we know many people used God for getting power and maintaining it.

[Chesso 0]

I never said being an extremist was bad......But my personal definition or part of it would be forcing your "w/e" over what anyone else has to say, i'd consider that part of extremism.In other words, not taking in what other people say but expecting them to take in what you say. "Could also be considered a hypocrit".Not accusing anyone in this discussion of it though.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Scientifically God doesn't exist. Science needs proof and there is no way you can prove his existence.God in an unknown entity to every human being but every one is looking to find him.

This is not quite accurate. God is not a meaningful object in any scientific statement, for science restricts itself to that which is objectively observable or measurable. God is clearly not objectively observable or measurable. Therefore Science cannot say that God does not exist any more than it can say that God does exist. Science cannot say anything about God at all. God would not be a legitimate part of any scientific hypothesis and therefore God could not be a part of any scientific conclusion.

Mathematics rests on proof not science. Science rests on observational data, by accepting or rejecting hypotheses as result of experimental observation.

Yes God is an big unknown to science because nothing which is known about him is the result of any objective observation or measurement. As a result, God is useless as a scientific explanation. As an explanation for things God is a black box into which questions disappear without a trace with words like "because God made it that way" and "that is how God obviously wanted it to be".

[Chesso 0]

But then how can religious people say it's real, belief isn't enough to make something real now is it.....Ahh well.It'd be nice if it was eh heh heh.

[mitchellmckain 0]

But then how can religious people say it's real, belief isn't enough to make something real now is it.....

Well the question is whether everything real is necessarily objectively observable, and many people, famous physicists included, find reason to answer this question with an emphatic, NO! Instead such people see this restriction of science to what is objectively observable as a rather limiting kind of filter, which produces a very narrow view of the world. Most people in fact would find the idea of limiting reality to measurable quantities and the mathematical relationships between them as rather absurd, but that is exactly what physics does.
Edited November 3, 2006 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[talktime 0]

Mathematics rests on proof not science. Science rests on observational data, by accepting or rejecting hypotheses as result of experimental observation.

Wrong! Science need proof and mathematics is also a science. Mathematics is "science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement " . Using observational data is how one can get proof of something. Just using different verbiage doesnât alter the meaning.
For science hypothesis is not based on some imaginary idea. Hypothesis is continuation of current scientific knowledge propagated to next generation knowledge. God's concept is just a wild imagination according to current science , its just a fiction.

Yes God is an big unknown to science

He is known To whom? Can some one come forward and prove that he is known to them? That will lead to proving his existence. But there is no one who can do that. Those who claimed to know god fall flat on their face. They also said they knew earth is flat and evolution is wrong. The baseless imagination is expoesed from time to time. Burden of proof lies on them who claim his existence.

"No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.
The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false. Not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.

Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent. Ref: Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 1.

[Levis 0]

Everything can be explained by science, if not now then in the future. The bible is said to be the ideas of god. Religion used to teach that the everything revolved around the earth, this was disproven by Copernicus. What about the theory that the earth was created in seven days, what happened to the dinosaurs? Did they vanish in 3 hours and 47 minutes? I myself am agnostic not because i believe that god might exist but because i can not prove that he does not. Who knows maybe he is trying to trick us.

If the universe did start from a spec of dust, maybe even smaller, then where did it come from? If all living things did evolve from simple single-celled organisms, then how come there still are single-celled organisms lying around?

Single celled organisms still exist because they did not need to evolve. These organisms are content with their enviroment and do not need additional energy.

God's thoughts cannot be read by anyone, not because he doesn't exist but because his "mind" if i may call it that is way too big for us to understand with our little brains. It's just like a man trying to communicate with an ant--it's impossible.

Umm, as of right now we are able to communicate with dolphins in very broad terms.. Communications with ants is impossible because they do not have a language system. Instead they communicate using chemicals. These chemicals can easily be decrypted with modern tools.

[Chesso 0]

Those are some very good points.But i'd also like to add that, even if some form of "God" exists or existed, I highly doubt it is even anywhere near close to what we'd percieve it to be, much like aliens I suppose, too many movies eh heh heh.

[Levis 0]

No single person can ever convince another to change their beliefs, even if they do sound logical. God - Religion its a form of tradition and a form of rule. It keeps people organized and it can keep society rolling, yet it does nto allow people to progress. Religion creates a sociological barrier that limits man's dream. Sure their might be a god, but does god want man to be stupid. Its funny, God gives man instintics but tells him not to use it. How HOw How can this be. Why does the bible force someone to one place, i dont understand. This topic is pretty hot and in a way needs to be closed. People's beliefs are really being stangled in this forum. Religion should never be debated because it never leads to a positive but a negative.

[CaptainRon 0]

Wrong! Science need proof and mathematics is also a science. Mathematics is "science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement " . Using observational data is how one can get proof of something. Just using different verbiage doesn't alter the meaning. For science hypothesis is not based on some imaginary idea. Hypothesis is continuation of current scientific knowledge propagated to next generation knowledge. God's concept is just a wild imagination according to current science , its just a fiction.

Need to disagree here. If science always needs proof, then I would like to ask you would led to the hypothesis of the 18th century that Sun was a giant ball of coal? What lead to the belief that earth had a giant magnet inside it? What lead to the hypothesis of "Hollow Earth Theory" in early 20th century? Einsteins theory of relativity got practically proved only after it was well accepted by the scientific community. Some of the theories of Stephen Hawkings are not close to practical understanding, let alone being proved! The reason is, these hypothesis's made sense in the context of the concerned era. As we came to know about Nuclear Fusion reactions, we could conclude that Sun has a similar chemical process. Similarly God is no wild imagination, but our term for the supreme creator. The day we understand him scientifically, our purpose of existence in this world will be over (atleast mine ).

What my religion tells me, earth goes through a cycle of four epochs. These are called "yuga". In the first Yuga, man is very very close to God, there is no vice, and he understands his purpose of existence very well. He dedicates himself to God, there is no evil anywhere. Evil is defined as hate, jealousy or greed. In the second Yuga, evil gets introduced for the first time. People are by far good but some evil exists. Then in the third Yuga, evil starts gaining predominance over good. In the fourth Yuga, evil becomes an inherent property of nearly every human. What it means is that every person has a certain quantity of hate, jealousy and greed. It is also said that every new Yuga is started with the extermination of the previous Yuga and a select few are chosen to lay the foundation of the next Yuga.

This is exactly what Noah in Old Testament, Manu in Hindu Mythology and Gilgamesh in the Epic of Gilgamesh did. These three are the oldest literature in relation to God by three different races i.e. Semetics, Indo-Europeans and Summerians. Manu derives the word "Man" in most european languages and "Manav" in most Indian languages. When three speak the same theory, despite their geographical location, we are forced to attribute atleast some amount of truth to these ancient literature.

Now to continue, currently it is the fourth Yuga running, where there is some part of evil in almost everyone. It is said that by the end of the fourth Yuga, man would have found God, evil would be nullified and Man will realise the reason of his existence and then civilization will go back to the first Yuga.

[mitchellmckain 0]

This topic is pretty hot and in a way needs to be closed. People's beliefs are really being stangled in this forum. Religion should never be debated because it never leads to a positive but a negative.

My disagreement with this is stronger than any disagreement I have ever had with anyone in the astohost forums (or any other forums for that matter). I strongly believe in religous freedom and a multicultural society. I rejoice in the diversity of human belief for I see in that diversity great beauty and strength. Threads like this are extremely valuable for it helps people of diverse beliefs like CaptainRon and myself learn to communicate more effectively. Through that communication peace becomes a more certain possiblity and mankind becomes a stronger whole. If people feel threatened by some thread they do not need to read it, post in it, or participate in any way. The internet is worldwide so if you participate you should be prepared to make your own decisions about how much you want to be exposed to the world.

But in that diversity there are those opposed to this point of view, atheists like Hitler and the communists who irrationally believe or hope that religion will fade into obscurity in the light of reason and science. I am a scientist myself and strongly defend the methods, validity, and value, but I find this atheistic point of view very foolish. I may not agree or find much merit in CaptainRon's belief in these "yuga" as a process of history, but I vigorously defend His point of view as no less valid than any scientific perspective. If he were claiming that two different parallel lines on a Euclidean plane meet somewhere at a point then I would have cause to challenge his understanding of the concepts involved. But scientific conclusions are not based on proof and only a non-scientist unfamiliar with the methods of science would think such a thing. This idea is in fact typical of an atheist who has made science into his religion. But this religion has nothing to do with real science.

God - Religion its a form of tradition and a form of rule. It keeps people organized and it can keep society rolling, yet it does nto allow people to progress. Religion creates a sociological barrier that limits man's dream. Sure their might be a god, but does god want man to be stupid. Its funny, God gives man instintics but tells him not to use it. How HOw How can this be. Why does the bible force someone to one place, i dont understand.

Well you are welcome to your opinion but I do not agree with your characterization of religion at all nor with your conclusions about its role in the progress and dreams of people.

The religious diversity of mankind forces us to deal with our essentially subjective nature, so that we do not become lost in the vanity that our abstractions of ojectivity inspire. To allow this God would indeed be encouraging stupidity in mankind, and our progress would come to a halt as our prejudices remained unchallenged by different points of view.

We human beings are more complex than you seem to think for within our bodies lives another lifeform of a completely different nature than the biological forms of life on this planet. This lifeform is commonly called the human mind, and it is so much more alive and aware than other lifeforms on this planet that its potentiality dwarfs all these others to near insignificance. God would encourage our minds to be stronger and assert greater control over our body as part of the process of maturity and assuming responsibility. The point is that we are to use our instincts and not be used by them, for that would diminish the life of the human mind. In this way we can become aware that our life is not simply a matter of providing for the needs of our body alone, but that all life on this planet is interconnected and part of a single whole, which we need to protect and care for. No other life form on the planet is capable of this.