I still consider my self to be agnostic, meaning that I believe there is no definite way to know if God exists or doesn’t.
Imagine being told to go find the “missing chick” at the beach.
“What does she look like?” you ask.
“Never mind that. Just find her” you are told.
You cannot possible follow these instructions. It is foolish to enter into a discussion of a thing or person’s location or existence unless one has some conception of their features or properties. You must have some general idea of what God is before you search. Since most of my readers believe in the Judeo-Christian conception of God, and that it’s the easiest to write about since only one version exists, I’m going to write about it. This obviously doesn’t imply the superiority of this conception over others. This definition is very similar to most other religions.
The common accepted properties of god are the following:
- Omnipotent (God can do anything, or bring about anything)
- Omniscient (God knows everything)
- Eternal (God has always existed, and always does)
- Perfect Good (God is morally Perfect)
- Creator (God Created all that exists)
Omniscient
If God knows everything, does he therefore know about the future?
Mere human beings like ourselves know some things about the future. For instance, in December of last year we knew that it would rain sometime before the December of this year. We had very good inductive reasons for that belief, and further, it did rain this year. Since it did rain this year, why deny that we knew it would rain this year, last year.
If we mere humans can have knowledge about the future, then surely God can have such knowledge since he is perfect, and all knowing. Matter of fact God would have even a better knowledge of the future then we do since he is ‘God’.
Then the question is, does God’s “knowing the future” rule out our free will. (Ability to choose our actions) In other words, do I act freely as I type this next word out, when yesterday God already knew that I would type this word at this very moment?
Eternality
Some people believe that eternality is timelessness. That is that god is outside of time. Time doesn’t affect him.
Only problem with that is:
How can something exist outside of time and perform anything? How can a being who is “outside of time” do anything, since “doing” requires the passage of time?
If you want to call god eternal, then the definition of eternal should be everlasting, not outside of time.
Omnipotent
To say god is omnipotent is to say that God can “do anything” or “bring about anything.” What exactly does that mean?
One might say that it means that God can do or bring about literally anything that one might imagine or describe. I think there is a valid reason to reject this. For instance, some things may not make logical sense or are coherent. One such thing would that it makes no sense to say that God can draw a round square or find a married bachelor. To say god can do anything and then say he has logical limitations is a contradiction.
”God is omnipotent. He can do anything that you can describe.”
”Yeah? Can he lift any stone?”
”Of course. He can lift anything, because he can do anything.”
”Among the stones I can describe is a stone that is so heavy that God can’t lift it.”
”Uhh, yeah so whats your point.”
”Well, if, as you say, God can do anything that I or you can describe, then he can lift any stone. And since one stone (that I can describe being lifted) is the stone that is too heavy for God to lift, it follows that God can lift the stone that is too heavy for him to lift. Can God do that?”
”Well, yes.”
”I don’t get it. That makes no sense?”
”Why does it have to make sense? Maybe it does make sense, to God!”
”Well, you’re saying that there’s this stone that God can lift that God can’t lift. You’re saying that both ‘God can lift the stone’ and ‘God can’t lift the stone.’ You’re embracing a contradiction.”
”Well, I guess you’re right. But you’re also wrong, I guess.”
”Once, again.”
The law of non-contradiction says that no statement can be both true and false
How can you justify God’s existence without any evidence? Of course, atheism has no evidence either, so agnosticism is the only defensible “religion”. But as those of us who are empiricists know, something does not exist until it is perceived, or there is proof of it. The lack of proof leads to only one conclusion: God does not exist (given what we know so far). If any of you have proof of God’s existence, cheerfully share it with us.
Frank, as I look back at your posts I don’t see a systematic set of beliefs. Do you believe in God, or are you playing devil’s advocate?
Haha you caught me…my earlier posts were to play devil’s advocate. I presented some commonly heard arguments for the existence of God to see if it could provoke discussion. I hope everyone realized how simplistic the arguments were. Personally, I would describe myself as an anti-theist. As I mentioned before in my latest post, agnosticism is the only logically valid position. However, I am a zealous humanist who rejects God, even if God did exist. So I don’t know if God exists or not, but I resent Him either way.
doesn’t anyone have any more opinion?
Reply to post number 4, Jeff’s comment. I’m copying this directly from my blog:
Some people say that that they believe in god simply because you are safer of believing there is a god, than your not. They believe this because if they don’t believe in god they will burn in hell if there is a god, but if there isn’t there is nothing lost.
The main problem with this theory, is that there are contradicting beliefs. Supposed you were to believe in every god, simply because you don’t know one exists that would be a contradiction in itself. One god belief’s says that if you do not believe in me you burn in hell, while the other says if you do not believe in my you go to hell. So unless you believe in one version of god only, and that version is the correct version you go to hell.
Not the strongest of arguments, but its sufficient.
way to go nick. nice arguement.
Don’t argue about religion, its like trying to row a rowing boat with one paddle.
I personally think people in general, are too afraid to question the programmed state they have been given since birth. I think “god” is more a psychological set-back that must be re-thought, since all it really is till this day is a way to point and persecute, divide and conqour, segregate and seperate by means of elitisism and self proclaimation.
I also believe that energy is godliness, a fusion of life thriving as one… Gaia. I believe ancient tribes knew this, for they believed in the elements, sun, moon and earth knowing that everything is alive, of course that which we create ouselves is nothing more than trash which pollutes and will eventually kill our very being. That is until we are once again part of the soil and ready to start the cycle one again… an evolution if you will.
In all I would have to say god is real… he is you, me, he and she… I know this because we are the only ones who can save ourselves.
i wasnt arguing. i was just saying i believe in God.
This is a continuation of the point Ashutosh made about non-contradiction. The problem with that argument is that contradiction is only a limitation to us as mortals. As you said “God can do or bring about literally anything that one might imagine or describe”, well, can you really imagine, let alone describe a round circle? A married bachelor? Contradiction can only exist because of words, and words only exist because of people. In that sense words itself is a limitation because it enables us to contradict ourselves therefore nullifying the argument.
Andrew, just say that you are afraid of discussing religion because you are clueless to what you believe.
This brings up an intersting new point. Now that im a believer in a “greater being” which “God” or “religion do i choose to believe in.
-Jeff
John Roland, I am not clueless in the matter, and don’t be immature and resort to personal attacks. Religion is too a personal a matter for each individual, and usually the discussion comes to no resolution. You can try to discuss religion I’m not denyin that, but in the end we’re going to end where we started off.
You know theres a korean band called GOD
Dude if God is celestial and we are not worthy to view with our naked eyes, why are we debating him anyways…. It’s not like anything we say in this room will make a difference, sway his decisions, change mankind. I Dare you Not To Think. Save yourself 2 hrs over a looping subject.
andy point well taken, but i think the “god” ur refering to is the Chiristian one. what about all the other “god’s” Greek, Bhudda, etc etc. let us not forget about those.
True, correct Jeff, I do take into account though that God, Buddha, Allah, all thse are referring to the same omnnipotent deity. I believe it is just man who decides to “classify” or “paint” God a certain skin color, gender, preference, so it is more familiar to the worshipper. However it is clear that there is a strong correlation between each religion that there is a single god-like figure who is all knowing, all powerful, and has created us. Its just mankind and politics that have polluted the divine teachings of the Omnipotent one. Mankind and its evil have attempted to harness a pure and divine power. In each religion there are instances where man has corrupted religion, in Christian practices, Tommy Baker with his television hoaxes, in Muslim practices, Farrahkhan and his multitude of wives, in Buddha, the evil Shaolin monks who use their super human fighting abilities to attack the impoverished farmers of the Taipeing Province. Anyways, man shouldn’t try to control or label/commercialize God, just accept him and acknowledge his existence.
Let us keep our conversations civil. Don’t flame, or make unnessicary personal attack; one it shows immaturity, two shows what kinda person you are.
no matter how controversial the problem keep debates/discussion clean, if you cant do that the this isnt the place for you. thanks.
-Jeff
Are you inferring that I am attacking you?
Point well taken andy.
John Roland is attacking my personal beliefs. *cough* Nazi *cough*
you call yourself an ashramite?
I don’t understand. Being an ashramite implies that you believe in you- that you are that God which you worship, and if you do consider yourself one, then why the agnostic title?
“God dwells within you as you.”
-Swami Muktananda Paramhamsa
I am neither affirming nor denying his existence. I believe that there is no way for us to be certain of his existence, and no way to prove that he doesn’t exist.
However the burden of proof lies on those that say he exists, rather than those that say he doesn’t because to say something exists you should be able to prove it.
For example if Bob says to me Bigfoot exists, I would say show me. For him to tell me that show me that Bigfoot doesn’t exist would be impossible, because there is no way to search everywhere for him. Thus the burden of proof lies on the people that say something exists rather does not exists.
As to the question regarding the Ashram, yes I still am. To me it means the “Best you can be lies within you”.
Well in answer to post 18, Andy is making a good point. This relates to my article “A Simple Life” in the way that man tries to “label” something so that he can understand it, make it tangible. But isnt that what religion is all about? Trying to get closer to God, Label Him. Color Him so that we may have a better understanding? Otherwise just accepting his existence is the same was as accepting gravity. It is very true that religious institutions have taken in corruption and deceit, but that is just due to human nature. All good things will be distorted by man’s wants and needs. By acknowledging him is to never question, which is better in my argument, but not possible. It is human nature to question his surroundings, but isn’t that what religion is? The search for meaning? It is true that the major similarity in most religions is acknowledgement of a one true omnipotent being, and as Andy says, religion is just a “painting” of a man’s view the way he sees God. However the problem of this is misinterpretation. We must take into account that the interpretations of God in many religions are somewhat distorted by the makers of the religion, seeing that it IS through their eyes we are seeing God. So rather than tolerance of all religions, I think the search for a religion that is not suited for your purposes or views, but is instead pure and morally correct is somewhat of a lost cause, but still a worthy cause to strive for.
everything is assuming he’s a human… but he’s not.
we have no freaking idea who the hell this “god” character is so he can’t really be inserted into any verbal equations. But I say theres no proof of him so screw him.
Religion is based on faith, or the overlooking of doubts. You may have faith, you may not, but what if God really exists and you’re wrong?
In answer to #26, anyone who believes in a god can show you proof of their god. Many would probably give you a confused look and pity you for being so blind. Or they may help by pointing out the window. “There’s God,” they may say. God is in the magnificence and beauty of the world. He’s also in the savage justice, the cruel and uncaring constant order of the universe. Winter comes regardless of the homeless or sick who it might kill. Justice happens—sometimes looking very much like injustice to our hearts that long for mercy. It’s easy to see the evident order of the universe. Any mathematician or scientist would tell you. It’s rare to see disorder and that’s why it is news when disorder happens (such as natural disasters). This order is harsher and crueler than many of us imagine. It is no order stemming from disorder, though. That is not natural at all. If we really knew the world, we would suddenly know God. This terrible revelation would send us to the farthest corner away from this awful being to cower for eternity.
In reply to the original message, God does know our next move. How does that prove that He controls our next move? Maybe He knows, but chooses not to control our next move.
God may be outside of time. Doing does not necessitate time. One can’t prove that it does. But it’s stupid to argue that point.
As far as the rock, of course God can make one too big for Him to pick up. Again, if He chooses not to be able to pick it up, He will stay true to that. Here is the thing. We start with the premise that if God can create something even He can’t handle, there are things beyond Him that are too great for His understanding. If He can’t create things too big for Him to handle, there are things beyond Him that He can’t grasp or reach. By nature, though, God is beyond things that are beyond. Throughout the history of philosophy, philosophers knew that God had to be beyond what could be imagined or He would be the product of ourselves and the created is always less than the creator so God would be less than us. In order for God to be God He is beyond the beyond. There is nothing for Him to try to aspire to. It comes down to a matter of choice. God chooses not to be able to pick up the rock.
I’ve been so intrigued by this site and all your comments for a while now but i’ve always been too afraid to write – everyone’s so opinionated here. I’ve tried to read everyone’s comments about the God topic, but there’s so much so I think i’m just gonna comment on the topic itself and kinda the original article rather than to any one person’s entry.
First of all i feel I should explain that I’m writing this comment as a Christian who believes that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). I understand that many other people have quite different views from this.
In the original article there was a comment about eternal meaning timelessness – I agree with the conclusion more, about eternal meaning everlasting, not outside of time.
God is also omniscient. He does know everything, including the future. He has a special plan for everyone’s life. God loves everyone. However, because he loves everyone, he gave everyone free-will so we can all choose to believe in Him or not. He gives us all an opportunity to aceept him, but it’s up to us to make that choice. Yeah, God has a special plan for all of us, but it’s up to us to take the road he’s prepared.
Hah and that whole rock thing. I thought that was just funny, but it wasn’t really much of an argument. I agree with comment #28 that God chooses not to pick up the rock. The creator is always more powerful than the created, that’s just logical.
Anyway, I’m kind of surprised that with so many people talking about God and the existance of God, no one’s really mentioned love.
LOVE is the key to understanding God and the life God wants us to live. If you guys have a Bible, or if you don’t I’m sure everyone can look one up on the Internet, 1 John 4:7-21 explains a lot about God’s love. Love basically motivates everything that God does, and Jesus is a proof of God’s love because God sent his only Son down to save us and give us eternal life.
I’m sure a lot of you are thinking that this is all a matter of what you believe in, and yeah it is. I guess personally I’ve experienced a lot of things that have forced me to realize that God does exist. I sincerely hope that one day everyone reading this realizes it too.
I’m not that strong of a Christian yet, and i still have a lot of questions myself. But if you guys have any questions too, i’d love to talk to you about it.
“Just knowing that God exists isn’t enough. having faith in Him, loving Him, accepting His love for you–that is what makes the difference”
“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us” (1 John 4:10-12).
there is no god
#30 said there is no God or that God does not exist in reality—the statements are interchangeable. I may say there is no spider in Buckingham palace, but it’s impossible to know that until I have searched ever nook and cranny in Buckingham palace. So what #30 is saying is that he knows everything that exists and he has searched all of reality and, therefore, KNOWS there is no God in existence and in all of reality. #30, then, is all-knowing which GASP means that #30 must be GOD! In this case, we are honored that you have come to this humble web site, but are confused as to why you have just denied your own existence. Please enlighten us.
Until you know for sure that God doesn’t exist, how can you so boldly say that He doesn’t? This is where faith comes in. Faith is an essential part of religion that gives us strength to overcome our little doubts and believe. Because of faith, I can believe in God, because I believe that somewhere there is evidence. Unfortunately for athiests, they don’t have faith so they can’t really believe there is evidence that supports their side.
yah i think that there is a god and that is all that i have to say.
“god is real”
-dun dun dun
How can that be all #33 has to say? If there is a God, we’re in trouble strictly because we’re not Him. The term “God” denotes more than just a creator. But if there is God and we are acting as gods while ignoring Him and denying His existence, then I think we are in some trouble. And if we, who are acting like God, are actually God, then there really isn’t a God because we are all equal gods which means we are not gods at all because God, by definition, is above others. One cannot say “god exists” and leave it. #31 proved atheism isn’t logical. But we can’t stop at saying, “God exists” either.
I believe in God. Read the Bible.
Ryan, you make a pathetic argument. You can’t prove something using something that assumes itself. You cannot prove that God exists using premises, such as the claim that the Bible is divinely-inspired, to prove God exists. It is called circular reasoning. No points for you.
Ok, I dont want to start a war over this. I genuinely want this post to be used for an exchange of ideas. Good questions you have (I wrote that, and then upon rereading it, I heard a faint Yoda voice). Anyhow, I think there are a lot of fundamentally wrong things with what you have to say, again, dont take what i say personally =). Okay, taking it from the top:
__________
(Point One)
Imagine being told to go find the “missing chick” at the beach.
“What does she look like?” you ask.
“Never mind that. Just find her” you are told.
__________
Religion is nothing like this. You arent looking for a face, a specific person. When people say to “find” or “accept” God, it’s not about finding something specific. It’s about finding something you believe in, something that makes sense. It is given, that everyones experience of God, will be more or less real to someone else’s experience. The example given is not even close to what looking for a religion is like. There’s research, investigation, and study. Agreed that islam, christianity etc. can be pushy for one to follow them, but it is ultimately up to the searcher to do the research, to truly “believe” before giving in. And too often, this does not happen, resulting in what you have as “false” believers. However, the example given is very quick to attack religion and I doubt scholars of faith or of atheism would agree with the above example of searching for God.
__________
(Point Two)
If God knows everything, does he therefore know about the future?
Yes, he does. (no one ever denied that)
___________
Mere human beings like ourselves know some things about the future. For instance, in December of last year we knew that it would rain sometime before the December of this year. We had very good inductive reasons for that belief, and further, it did rain this year. Since it did rain this year, why deny that we knew it would rain this year, last year.
___________
(Point Three)
However, these things we know about the future, they are still “predictions.” And yes, they are awfully good predictions. But can you say 100 percent? I don’t think we as human beings can ever be 100 percent sure of anything. I don’t think there is a single Christian out there who will even dare to say that they are 100 percent sure of their faith, and if they do, then something is wrong with them. You can never be sure of anything. God, on the other hand, is a different story.
__________
(Point Four)
If we mere humans can have knowledge about the future, then surely God can have such knowledge since he is perfect, and all knowing. Matter of fact God would have even a better knowledge of the future then we do since he is ‘God’.
__________
Again, agreed.
__________
(Point Five)
Then the question is, does God’s “knowing the future” rule out our free will. (Ability to choose our actions) In other words, do I act freely as I type this next word out, when yesterday God already knew that I would type this word at this very moment?
__________
Lets think this through. God knows when, what, and how you are going to perform your next action. Thus, God also knows when you will choose to believe in him or if you will never believe in him. But does this mean there is no free will? Free will means nothing is compelling you to do anything. Yes, God does know everything, even the future, that does not mean you are stopped from performing your own actions, after all, do you know the future?
___________
(Point Six)
Some people believe that eternality is timelessness. That is that god is outside of time. Time doesn’t affect him.
Only problem with that is:
How can something exist outside of time and perform anything? How can a being who is “outside of time” do anything, since “doing” requires the passage of time?
If you want to call god eternal, then the definition of eternal should be everlasting, not outside of time.
__________
Wouldn’t someone/something that is everlasting be “outside of time”—whatever that means-Time is a relative idea. For example, the minute you are born you experience one minute. Now, at that age, one minute is all you know. So when another minute passes by you have just doubled your life. That minute may be the longest minute we ever feel. Have you ever noticed that years go by faster as you grow older? That’s because one year to me now would be only 1/17th of my life, where as 1 year when I was 2 would be 1/2 of my life. God, I agree is everlasting, perhaps outside of time, but not outside of time by the way of your definition.
___________
To say god is omnipotent is to say that God can “do anything” or “bring about anything.” What exactly does that mean?
___________
It means exactly that. He can do ANYTHING.
One might say that it means that God can do or bring about literally anything that one might imagine or describe. I think there is a valid reason to reject this. For instance, some things may not make logical sense or are coherent. One such thing would that it makes no sense to say that God can draw a round square or find a married bachelor. To say god can do anything and then say he has logical limitations is a contradiction.
“God is omnipotent. He can do anything that you can describe.”
“Yeah? Can he lift any stone?”
“Of course. He can lift anything, because he can do anything.”
“Among the stones I can describe is a stone that is so heavy that God can’t lift it.”
“Uhh, yeah so whats your point.”
“Well, if, as you say, God can do anything that I or you can describe, then he can lift any stone. And since one stone (that I can describe being lifted) is the stone that is too heavy for God to lift, it follows that God can lift the stone that is too heavy for him to lift. Can God do that?”
“Well, yes.”
“I don’t get it. That makes no sense?”
“Why does it have to make sense? Maybe it does make sense, to God!”
“Well, you’re saying that there’s this stone that God can lift that God can’t lift. You’re saying that both ‘God can lift the stone’ and ‘God can’t lift the stone.’ You’re embracing a contradiction.”
“Well, I guess you’re right. But you’re also wrong, I guess.”
“Once, again.”
__________
Point Seven
Frankly, this is one of the poorest arguments in this article. It’s simply a play on words that have little or no meaning. This is not saying that God cant do this or that. God can perform miracles he can do things that are unexplainable. These are just “loopholes” that prove nothing. However, if you want to further explain this feel free.
Oh, and believers that answer questions like that need to be helped.
I’m afraid much more needs to be said, and I would also like to post my “thoughts” and have you respond to them, because currently all my replies are defenses and show weakness on my part. I guess this is a part where I “plug” myself to get an independent article on your page. =).
Also, by no means are my replies comprehensive and right. No, I’m not omnipotent, even though I’m a Christian.
All I have to say is, It is better to believe than not to. Cause come the day of your death, you can only benefit. yeah?
-Jeff
I took the liberty to number your sections one, two, three and what not so as to avoid having to copy paste the whole thing back and forth. I doubt you’ll mind.
Point One:
I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. It wasn’t intended to be argument supporting my belief. I wrote it as a lead in to the reason for stating the definition of God.
Point Two, Three, Four:
I fully agree, that if God were to exist he would have a much better and complete knowledge of the future then us. I was using it to bring up the point of free will.
Point Five:
I think your definition of free will and mine differ. If God was to know the future then I was going to type the following ‘word’. If God knew that ahead of time, and had complete knowledge of the future then I can do nothing other than type ‘word’. The necessary condition for acting freely is that the person could have done otherwise than perform the action. If a person could not have done other than a particular action then his action is not free. If god were to exist, he knew that I would type that word, thus it had to happen, and thus I had no free will.
Point Six:
My goal of that point was to make clearer the definition of eternality. Eternality when applied to God means everlasting, not outside of time.
Point Seven:
My fabricated conversation with the believer was to prove the point that if God were to exist he could violate the laws of nature (gravity, etc) but not the law of non-contradiction. He can’t lift something that is too heavy for him to lift. Yes it appears to be a play of words, but by putting a restriction on God you are saying that he is not omnipotent.
And you’re one of the few Christians I’ve talked to who hasn’t turned to the bible or church for support. The Bible, the Gita, the Koran all have no validity when debating the existence of God.
I do. Religion is fucktarded.