Philosophy and the proof of God's existence

[Ban Hammer 12,904]

It's a belief, not a belief system. It's a belief that stands by itself, unsupported by any other beliefs and not requiring other beliefs/practices to be associated with it.

Personally, I believe agnosticism is much more intellectually honest than either theism or atheism.

i don't care

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

Every culture has its own translation of what or who the higher power is that they believe in,

I can't say that any one cuture is correct, accurate, right or wrong. If an individual or culture feels compelled to believe a certain way, & if that belief makes them feel better or makes them a better person for their beliefs then I applaud them for dedication to what they truly believe & practice. So Long as their beliefs are not pushed upon me or neagtivly effect my family and could care less what the next person believes. If they feel they are better for it then good on them.

I persoanlly believe more along the lines of Darwin rather that God.

However, I believe in the beauty of our world and the amazing things that surround us everyday, i dont get caught up in argument s about how it is or how it all became to be, I simply enjoy it, appreciate it and share it with my children.

If I don't see scientific evidence I am not inclined to believe it.

[Amby 490]

It's a belief, not a belief system. It's a belief that stands by itself, unsupported by any other beliefs and not requiring other beliefs/practices to be associated with it.

Personally, I believe agnosticism is much more intellectually honest than either theism or atheism.

I said I'm agnostic because I really have no f*cking clue, but for me to believe I need some really really hardcore evidence. I don't really care either way though.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Amby

[DeadPoolX 9]

The only "higher being" I believe in is Primus (and maybe Vector Sigma, too).

[Jasman0717 8]

I took a philosophy class in college that dealt specifically with this but for the life of me can't remember anything about the class

[mawilson 2,133]

It's a belief, not a belief system. It's a belief that stands by itself, unsupported by any other beliefs and not requiring other beliefs/practices to be associated with it.

Personally, I believe agnosticism is much more intellectually honest than either theism or atheism.

I said I'm agnostic because I really have no f*cking clue, but for me to believe I need some really really hardcore evidence. I don't really care either way though.

Of course, believers will tell you that for them to become atheists, they will need some

hardcore evidence that God doesn't exist. The argument is very silly, of course,

because if you make some shіt up, it's up to you to prove that it's real. You can't go

around making shіt up and asking other people to prove that it's not.

Edited January 15, 2009 by mawilson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a belief, not a belief system. It's a belief that stands by itself, unsupported by any other beliefs and not requiring other beliefs/practices to be associated with it.

Personally, I believe agnosticism is much more intellectually honest than either theism or atheism.

I said I'm agnostic because I really have no f*cking clue, but for me to believe I need some really really hardcore evidence. I don't really care either way though.

Of course, believers will tell you that for them to become atheists, they will need some

hardcore evidence that God doesn't exist. The argument is very silly, of course,

because if you make some shіt up, it's up to you to prove that it's real. You can't go

around making shіt up and asking other people to prove that it's not.

Atheism requires believing with certainty that there is no God which is equally unprovable...one man's silliness is another man's fodder. Silly humans.

[Amby 490]

It's a belief, not a belief system. It's a belief that stands by itself, unsupported by any other beliefs and not requiring other beliefs/practices to be associated with it.

Personally, I believe agnosticism is much more intellectually honest than either theism or atheism.

I said I'm agnostic because I really have no f*cking clue, but for me to believe I need some really really hardcore evidence. I don't really care either way though.

Of course, believers will tell you that for them to become atheists, they will need some

hardcore evidence that God doesn't exist. The argument is very silly, of course,

because if you make some shіt up, it's up to you to prove that it's real. You can't go

around making shіt up and asking other people to prove that it's not.

Atheism requires believing with certainty that there is no God which is equally unprovable...one man's silliness is another man's fodder. Silly humans.

Do you believe in God? Do you think he exists? Just curious.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Amby

[mawilson 2,133]

Atheism requires believing with certainty that there is no God which is equally unprovable...one man's silliness is another man's fodder. Silly humans.

Atheism doesn't require any "believing" - it's a rejection of belief (in God or gods.)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Atheism requires believing with certainty that there is no God which is equally unprovable...one man's silliness is another man's fodder. Silly humans.

Atheism doesn't require any "believing" - it's a rejection of belief (in God or gods.)

Sure it does. You have faith in your certainty without any proof to support that position. It's the other side of the coin, Mark - and equally as ridiculous as believing in a God if that is your argument.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is interesting...haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking it over, but worth looking at...

(Disclaimer: proof by reason is different from proof by material evidence)

St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm's proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm's proof).

The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm's proof is summarized here:

1. 1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
   2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
   3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
   4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
   5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
   6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
   7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
   8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
   9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

Atheism requires believing with certainty that there is no God which is equally unprovable...one man's silliness is another man's fodder. Silly humans.

Atheism doesn't require any "believing" - it's a rejection of belief (in God or gods.)

Sure it does. You have faith in your certainty without any proof to support that position. It's the other side of the coin, Mark - and equally as ridiculous as believing in a God if that is your argument.

In an abstract God, maybe.

But most people don't believe in an abstract God, they believe in Jahweh, Jesus, Allah, Krishna

or what have you. They believe in fairy tales written in "holy" books. The only "proof" they

have that the Bible is the "word of God" is the Bible itself and the fact that there are 5 billion

other idiots in the world who spend their lives muttering incantations to invisible creatures.

Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Atheism requires believing with certainty that there is no God which is equally unprovable...one man's silliness is another man's fodder. Silly humans.

Atheism doesn't require any "believing" - it's a rejection of belief (in God or gods.)

Sure it does. You have faith in your certainty without any proof to support that position. It's the other side of the coin, Mark - and equally as ridiculous as believing in a God if that is your argument.

In an abstract God, maybe.

But most people don't believe in an abstract God, they believe in Jahweh, Jesus, Allah, Krishna

or what have you. They believe in fairy tales written in "holy" books. The only "proof" they

have that the Bible is the "word of God" is the Bible itself and the fact that there are 5 billion

other idiots in the world who spend their lives muttering incantations to invisible creatures.

Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

Even fairy tales convey truth. It's when people confuse truth with fact that it can become ridiculous. It depends on what people want from a religion. If they are looking for someone else to think for them or give them answers to everything, then I would agree, that is ridiculous. If someone finds religion gives them focus and direction but requires the person to think for himself....grapple with life's questions, then more power to them. There is a big difference between those two approaches when it comes to religion.

[mawilson 2,133]

Even fairy tales convey truth. It's when people confuse truth with fact that it can become ridiculous. It depends on what people want from a religion. If they are looking for someone else to think for them or give them answers to everything, then I would agree, that is ridiculous. If someone finds religion gives them focus and direction but requires the person to think for himself....grapple with life's questions, then more power to them. There is a big difference between those two approaches when it comes to religion.

Ok, I can live with that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Even fairy tales convey truth. It's when people confuse truth with fact that it can become ridiculous. It depends on what people want from a religion. If they are looking for someone else to think for them or give them answers to everything, then I would agree, that is ridiculous. If someone finds religion gives them focus and direction but requires the person to think for himself....grapple with life's questions, then more power to them. There is a big difference between those two approaches when it comes to religion.

Ok, I can live with that.

Send your check payable to:

Sisters of Mercy

PO Box 1827

Boulder, CO 90621