What if there was no god?

[mazHur]

If there wasn't a God there could be no Nietzsche or we discussing about Him or him !
Who, afterall, looks after this whole play if it isn't God?? Who makes our plans go wrong (or right) ?? If there was no god ,Science would have proved where man goes after death but it cant because God is there and holding them back to get at that mystery!

here is a link for Nietzsche ::

http://www.newstatesman.com/200711080054
Nietzsche and nihilism, by Keith Pearson: The whole idealism of humanity…is on the point of tipping into nihilism -- into the belief in absolute valuelessness, that is, meaninglessness… The annihilation of ideals, the new wasteland, the new arts of enduring it, we amphibians.

[APEist]

Reading some of the responsed gives me the dreadful impression that people haven't really read anything about philosophy and theological arguments about this subject.
News flash: the world is a dark and terrible place. Human beings have believed in a supernatural being to try and make sense of this place, but it doesn't make it real. Nietzche begins his argument with the famous qoute: God is dead.
I suggest you guys read what Russell, Sartre and Heideggar had to say on the subject. You might also want to check out the recent books by Hitchens, Dawkins and my favorite: "God: the failed hypothesis" by Victor Stenger.

Ok, so what does it matter if the previous posters in this thread havn't read all that much (if at all) into the subject. Those authors, however genius, had no more leads then we have.

All I see is you inferring that the debaters here are uneducated on the subject, and then not offering up your own theories. Of course I'll be coming off as a little hypocritical here (and rightfully so), seeing as how I am not posting my own theory, but at least I'm not infering that the previous posts are uneducated when the topic at hand is so abstract that no human can possibly claim to know anything for certain about it. Thus EVERYONE is uneducated about it, and EVERYONE'S opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

[Virgil]

Ok, so what does it matter if the previous posters in this thread havn't read all that much (if at all) into the subject. Those authors, however genius, had no more leads then we have.

All I see is you inferring that the debaters here are uneducated on the subject, and then not offering up your own theories. Of course I'll be coming off as a little hypocritical here (and rightfully so), seeing as how I am not posting my own theory, but at least I'm not infering that the previous posts are uneducated when the topic at hand is so abstract that no human can possibly claim to know anything for certain about it. Thus EVERYONE is uneducated about it, and EVERYONE'S opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

Unlike somewhere else, I happen to agree with Ape here. Very good response to someone who thinks that the writers he agrees with have the final say on the subject. Well, there are others who disagree.

[mazHur]

The will of God [is] the sanctuary of ignorance.

Everyone judges of things according to the state of his brain, or rather mistakes for things the forms of his imagination.

Truth is its own standard. We must remember, besides, that our mind, insofar as it truly perceives things, is a part of the infinite intellect of God, and therefore it must be that the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as true as those of God.

The more we understand individual objects, the more we understand God.

God and all the attributes of God are eternal.

Nature is but a name for an effect whose cause is God.

here are some quotes about God by Baruch Spinoza who is famed as the Modern Rational Philosopher.

God is the free cause of all things.

[Dark Star]

If there wasn't a God there could be no Nietzsche or we discussing about Him or him !

You can't be serious. Nietzsche was discussing the belief in such a being. It does NOT have to be there for people to believe in it.

Or do you mean that we wouldn't be alive at all if God wasn't there? Either way its a superfluous assumption about life or beliefs.

Who, afterall, looks after this whole play if it isn't God?? Who makes our plans go wrong (or right) ??

It could be Odin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, the great gobblygook on the mountain; any number of deities could be inserted in the place of 'God' here. Furthermore, you seem to have made some claim that there is something that 'looks after this whole play' and 'makes our plans go wrong (or right)' without providing a reason why such a thing is necessary, or even any evidence that it happens.

If there was no god ,Science would have proved where man goes after death but it cant because God is there and holding them back to get at that mystery!

...What? The latter does not follow from the former and this is a very poor God of the Gaps argument (READ: logical fallacy). That we have not developed scientifically far enough to explain what happens to a person's consciousness when they died does not mean God is there holding us back from it (unless, of course you mean the centuries of forward progression in science the Church did their damnedest to hold us back by).

[mazHur]

do you mean that we wouldn't be alive at all if God wasn't there? Either way its a superfluous assumption about life or beliefs.

Or do you believe you won't be DEAD if God wasn't there?? Doesn't your argument make it conversely superfluous and illogical?

I

t could be Odin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, the great gobblygook on the mountain; any number of deities could be inserted in the place of 'God' here.

This is what is called conjecturing and surmising. Couldn't you provide some concrete evidence to refute existence of God??

The latter does not follow from the former and this is a very poor God of the Gaps argument

Well, let science 'make' a pinch of dust then I will believe science is not just digging in what God has made and which already exists there. Science is just like chroming a piece of iron, not iron in itself !!

[Dark Star]

Or do you believe you won't be DEAD if God wasn't there?? Doesn't your argument make it conversely superfluous and illogical?

Until you give me evidence that God is necessary for life to exist, you are simply making a superfluous argument. Attempting to turn my argument around on me like that is a bad idea and doesn't work. God being necessary for life to exist is NOT the default, until evidence is given to support it. My conclusion is not superfluous or illogical and Occam's Razor supports it.

This is what is called conjecturing and surmising. Couldn't you provide some concrete evidence to refute existence of God??

How is listing other deities any more of a form of conjecture than your listing of God? And now, you're trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not my job to prove a negative (the non-existence of this being), your job is to provide some concrete evidence of the existence of God. At that time it would be necessary for me to refute it or to accept it as true. You have not yet done this.

Well, let science 'make' a pinch of dust then I will believe science is not just digging in what God has made and which already exists there. Science is just like chroming a piece of iron, not iron in itself !!

What? What exactly are you talking about when you say "'make' a pinch of dust"? Are you speaking of creating life? If so, its already been done: Miller-Urey.

[APEist]

This response might not directly apply to the original question of this thread, but I'd like to address something that nags me.

I myself am not religious (I'm agnostic), but when non-religious folk make statements along the lines of "religion is just a crutch for people, a coping mechanism for those of us who can't handle reality," it bothers me greatly. For one, assessing your own beliefs on such a topic as indisputable is pure ignorance, and for obvious reasons.

Two, isn't everyone just trying to find comfort in their own beliefs? It's just that people find comfort in different things. For example, a Christian finds comfort "knowing" that someone is guiding them and that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and that if they accept him as their saviour they will be granted access to heaven, while at the same time an atheist finds comfort "knowing" that there is no over-arching being controlling and/or observing their life, ready to pass judgement on them at the end. As an agnostic I find comfort "knowing" that all this speculation is pointless since we are discussing the unknowable, and so I just relax and go with the flow.

We all find comfort in different beliefs, and in the end that is the belief we are going to lean towards.

Honestly the people who have it the hardest in this world (concerning this topic) are people who are unsure of their beliefs. For instance, imagine how hard it must be for someone struggling to be a Christian because that was the way they were raised, but they constantly question the existence of Jesus or even God, and their faith is unsteady at best. How hard must it be sometimes to believe in something you've never seen, never heard, never felt.

I was once in that situation, and I used my past as an example because I know how fear of the unknown can breed in the heart of someone unsure of their beliefs.

Anyways, before you accuse someone for using their beliefs as a crutch, look in the mirror. Because you do to.

[mazHur]

How hard must it be sometimes to believe in something you've never seen, never heard, never felt.

This is not correct. You do see, hear and feel God in His manifestations, in your hearts. Just check it out!

[APEist]

This is not correct. You do see, hear and feel God in His manifestations, in your hearts. Just check it out!

I'm guessing you're implying that if a person is truly saved they are open to various forms of communication with God and whatnot. That's cool if that's what you believe.

For a second, when I first read it, I thought you were trying to tell me what I felt in the past. If somehow my first assumption was correct, I'll advise you to stop now before you discredit yourself any further.

[NikolaiI]

mazHur,
I guess we could say there's two opposing views here. Polar opposites. Extremes. A paradox. They cannot both be true. You agree with me, but you're about to stop.
Extremes meet. Paradoxes are solvable.
Two different sides or polar extremes come from a center. On a coin, on one side is heads and on the other is tails, and they are connected by the center.

It's like yin and yang.

Anyway, saying God is the cause of things is rather ridiculous.

Incipit me, into the world, a new observer. I learn about various things. I learn how to distinguish truth, and I learn the greatest metaphysical understandings of our day. Then I learn about language and ontology. Then you come and give me this arbitrary, non-intelligent statement that God is the cause of things, the un-moved mover, and furthermore, with all the arrogance of knowing you're right, when actually you're equally wrong as right.

I don't think there's a God.
Now, getting all angry with me for this, getting all contorted, isn't going to make me think there is anymore.
Can you even consider the other side? In Zen there is a saying "set it down and the truth will be before you," or something like that. In Buddhism it's taught to even let go of your own beliefs!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry. I don't mean to get all weird. Carry on.

[mazHur]

Niko, you are caught and bold !

the following quote is by Spinoza and not ME as erroneously transposed but taken by you to be by me !

God is the free cause of all things.
Spinoza

Have a round with Spinoza to get your answer.
I rest my argument here ,,,,,,,,

[NikolaiI]

Niko, you are caught and bold !

the following quote is by Spinoza and not ME as erroneously transposed but taken by you to be by me !

No, YOU said that, HERE. After the Spinoza quotes.

here are some quotes about God by Baruch Spinoza who is famed as the Modern Rational Philosopher.

God is the free cause of all things.

Have a round with Spinoza to get your answer.
I rest my argument here ,,,,,,,,[/QUOTE]

[mazHur]

Niko, although the quote was a transpositional error, it confirms your wrong judgment, argument and knowledge in the subject. It's now no use arguing further as you havnt read Spinoza or other philosophers for that sake. Bye

Reproaching God
By Anon

An orphan girl wearing tattered and dirty clothes stood on a street
corner begging for food. Or money to enable her to buy some.
A man noticed her and passed without giving her a second look. On
returning to his expensive home, his happy and comfortable family and
generously laden dinner table, his thoughts returned to her. He became
angry with God for allowing such destitute children to exist without
helping them.
He reproached God, saying,
"How can you let this happen ? Why don't you do something to help the
girl ?"
In the depths of his being a voice spoke, saying,
"I have, I created you."

[thescholar]

this largely depends on the individual's definition of God. For example, many people follow a set of virtues or beliefs that they themselves have formed. This type of belief set is much like a religion, it follows certain rules and practises, much like a religion, albeit without a defining name and/or subject. In this sense, no God would simply mean no directive for these virtues, though a person can still live with the beliefs and practises of religion. Besides, isn't religion formed largely on the basis that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven... this is a difficult concept for me to get my head around. Personally, even as an agnostic, I believe concrete proof of a lack of God would be potentially less ground-breaking than concrete proof of the existence of a God.