What if there was no god?

[Dark Star]

there are certain things that cannot be proved by reason. For example no one can explain why people think and act differently. However, it at times be required that we tried to understand a certain thing such as God without rejecting its existence. Inductive and deductive logic may perhaps give us some answer in case of God;s existence. Sometimes mere guess also tends to work as it did with Einstein who, as said, had just squared the speed of light by dint of his imagination and which ultimately proved true for itself.

I think you may have to employ inductive as well as deductive logic to assess the impact of God's existence rather than just denying it without reason.

The problem is that you're trying to have it both ways. You expect me to prove to you various physical phenomenon and how they happen without divine interference, but actively refuse to give me any reason to believe that divine interference is necessary or argue for any sort of proof of God. You sit back on a position that God exists and that is the default position and people must prove otherwise. That is not how the burden of proof works. You say I must not deny it without reason -- you are incorrect. You must not believe it without reason and give others a reason to believe in it if you expect them to. I do not deny it 'without reason'. I deny it precisely because there is no reason to believe it.

I've played your game for long enough: Burden of proof is on you to give some real evidence rather than pointing to various (perceived) idiosyncrasies within the universe as evidence that God is there holding it all together. People should know better than to play the God of the Gaps Game by now. It becomes increasingly embarrassing for them every time a new gap is closed up by information uncovered by science. I wonder what's going to happen when there are little to no gaps left to hide in.

[mazHur]

I get your point in that you want me to prove or show who came first, the hen or the egg? Well, this situation is vice versa. Your denial of a Supreme one is backed by material facts only whereas this universe consists of more than that,,,the non-material as well. Can you tell me where do thoughts go after death?? If thoughts can exist now why cant they in the hereafter? If we can have past, present and future why not something farther than future? something faster than light, something devoid of gravity??

Let me explain: whatever science has done or is doing is nothing new ---it's just trying to unfold the already existing things. If that is so, what justification yo have for saying that there is no ''existence'' or what exists is not the property of someone ,,,whom you are unable to comprehend or accept?
First there has to be something then science will work on it not earlier or in the void

[aabbcc]

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god?

Nothing. Life would go on. (And even if it did not, it would still be alright as I would not be around to be bothered by it.)

No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!)

(I am really thinking about it.) So what? Great.

Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?

Absolutely not.
All these years, for me, religion has been merely an intellectual hobby, or a heritage-ethnological curiosity, and at times school subject, not that anything would change if it proved not to be true. I would be indifferent.
I would go out to the gallery, the temple of my religion - art, and have a drink.

[Whifflingpin]

"I would go out to the gallery, the temple of my religion - art, and have a drink."

I hope you would at least shed a tear for all those artists, round the globe and down the years, who had produced sublime but futile testimonies to a Void.

[iorix]

God Rules

God is the Manifest Truth

God has sent many prophets and messengers in to the world

God created this world with clear purpose, to determine who follows His guidance and who takes side with the rebel.

Those who take side with the rebel will be consigned to infernal agony in festering swamps of putrefying sewage.

Those who follow guidance will have endless love in scented gardens of eternity.

[NikolaiI]

The thing is, if you think God exists, and you understand Him better than, for example, atheists who don't believe in Him, and you think it's an asset to you that you have this understanding, that it is one of your good qualities, and you think it's important-- not necessarily that you view yourself as superior to the atheists, but just that you really do feel that you've gotten this one thing right, then you should also join in mutual celebration of everything else that is good, and in expression of eloquence and reason-- since, as you say, you believe in God according to reason, and you have reasons for it-- then, in this situation, you should want to present your conception of God in a clear, and rational light, and present your ideas as they are supported by reason, so that you can share this, which you claim to be important. So that's what I tried to do, to present my view as it is supported by reason, in a few posts back, though it's been ignored.

[iorix]

some people are ANTI-theists. the existence of God is obvious but there are some people who strive to DETHRONE God and take over his authority on earth. or they just like to provoke God and take stabs at Him.

a lot of people are like this and this is why you cant seem to reason with them. they understand your argument but they are in opposition, they are not A-theists they are ANTI-theist and they know the truth about God very well.

[Etienne]

some people are ANTI-theists. the existence of God is obvious but there are some people who strive to DETHRONE God and take over his authority on earth. or they just like to provoke God and take stabs at Him.

a lot of people are like this and this is why you cant seem to reason with them. they understand your argument but they are in opposition, they are not A-theists they are ANTI-theist and they know the truth about God very well.

The existence of God is obvious? Oh really?

Anyways, beside providing empty statements and irrational judgement, you are doing doing much for the progress of the discussion. If you want to say something, please try to demonstrate it.

[Lote-Tree]

some people are ANTI-theists.

Yes off course! as there are Anti-atheists etc

the existence of God is obvious but there are some people who strive to DETHRONE God and take over his authority on earth.

Why is it so obvious?

or they just like to provoke God and take stabs at Him.

I am sure God can take it. After all is omnipotent?

a lot of people are like this and this is why you cant seem to reason with them.

That is the problem here. Reason and faith or two different things aren't they? Reason and hence logic makes God very illogical and unreasonable.

Truth of God is thus: There is no objective or logical proof God. Hence it boils down to beliefs. As soon as you say I believe...that's the end of the debate.

[NikolaiI]

some people are ANTI-theists. the existence of God is obvious but there are some people who strive to DETHRONE God and take over his authority on earth. or they just like to provoke God and take stabs at Him.

a lot of people are like this and this is why you cant seem to reason with them. they understand your argument but they are in opposition, they are not A-theists they are ANTI-theist and they know the truth about God very well.

Yes, Iorix, that's true, but perfect communication IS possible. You must understand that as soon as you speak disrespectfully, you begin to break the rules of the forum, and either the consequence is just that communication is lost, or at worst the thread is closed. It is never necessary to raise anyone's hackles to get them to see the point of what you're saying. And this is directed at everyone else equally as I'm saying it to you, Iorix, because I defend your right to debate and present your views as much as anyone else.

And yes you are right that people are like that, but they are not like it absolutely, you will agree this is true. People change always so they are never anything absolutely, and moreover you cannot dismiss people if you ever want them to respect you. Besides this, even someone who usually would not speak disrespectfully could do so out of irritation or other factors, and this would not speak against as who they are most of the time, or who they are at their best. If you want to convice someone they have hurt you, you have to leave out any feeling about them, or other things you couldn't know.

About God, yes, I wish people would make more of an effort to communicate and understand each other. A lot of people on this form are not natural born English speakers, so communication with them is difficult. And if they were someone you were interested in, or if you were RESPECTED them and were interested in what they had to say about something you were interested in, then you would make a much better effort to understand them.

Although I will note that I don't notice people bashing God so much. They don't argue with me about Him, I wish they would but no one has engaged me yet. I am more than happy to present my views to any atheist-- actually I do, but I'm always ignored. And I can state it very simply, and elaborate functionally as is needed for clarification. But as I have already presented my views on this thread, I will not degrade myself to put them in this post as well. I've given several different ways that I've seen in many places as ways to understand God, all of which I think are correct in relation to our understanding-- if none of them is complete or accurate, at least none of them says that "He is vengeful," what I mean is, none of them assume things like that. Nor do I say that God's existence means the Earth is 6000 years old, nor do I make any assumptions about countless things that are always abused in a very bad way-- I mean countless things about the state of mind of atheists, and the need for the knowledge of God. This is because I lived my life as an atheist; I searched, learned, lived, all of that. Now I believe I understand God in these new ways and I believe He's real; and I also believe I can explain this better than anyone on earth; which now this lofty order that I've put I am fortunate to have saved my simplest understanding of Him, that He is an infinite. I can give reasons as to why I think the existence of the infinite is real, and I would enjoy doing this actually, if anyone asked me or responded to my post where I've already given some. I use the word Him and capitalized, and the language, because it's the English language and that's how I speak. I do not think God is a Him, or anything other than an Infinite. No Him is an Infinte, and God is no Him.

I am sure God can take it. After all is omnipotent?

Well, yes, unless he doesn't exist, etc.....that is what we are talking about, the existence or non-existence of the infinite.

That is the problem here. Reason and faith or two different things aren't they? Reason and hence logic makes God very illogical and unreasonable.

Truth of God is thus: There is no objective or logical proof God. Hence it boils down to beliefs. As soon as you say I believe...that's the end of the debate.

[edit:] To Lote, listen closely, now, two things being different does not mean they are opposite, nor necessarily that they contrast. Reason and faith are not the same thing, but my poor soul do you not see how illogical it is to say that because they are not the same thing, logic makes God unreasonable? That's wrong. We don't know if God is reasonable or not, we are debating this; what is unreasonable is to say something without having a reason for it.

"I believe" is not the end of the debate. There is no reason for this, and you have not proved it!! Hehe, you do not see my meaning, I have no doubt. What???? How on Earth???? You say it is the end of all communication that someone believes-- you say it is impossible for them to communicate this?? What the heck are we supposed to communicate if we don't believe anything?

Ends of the debate are: "Blah blah blah you are a sorry stinking so-and-so, lower than a dog, rah rah rah" or..."I've hidden a bomb on this bus!!"--but "I believe", my little Lote, is not the end of the debate.

[NikolaiI]

(mistake)

[Lote-Tree]

[edit:] To Lote, listen closely, now, two things being different does not mean they are opposite, nor necessarily that they contrast. Reason and faith are not the same thing, but my poor soul do you not see how illogical it is to say that because they are not the same thing, logic makes God unreasonable? That's wrong. We don't know if God is reasonable or not, we are debating this; what is unreasonable is to say something without having a reason for it.

"I believe" is not the end of the debate. There is no reason for this, and you have not proved it!! Hehe, you do not see my meaning, I have no doubt. What???? How on Earth???? You say it is the end of all communication that someone believes-- you say it is impossible for them to communicate this?? What the heck are we supposed to communicate if we don't believe anything?

Ends of the debate are: "Blah blah blah you are a sorry stinking so-and-so, lower than a dog, rah rah rah" or..."I've hidden a bomb on this bus!!"--but "I believe", my little Lote, is not the end of the debate.

[/quote]

I think you did not get my point. If you use logic then you need to stick to logic. As soon as you say "I believe" that's the end of logical discussion.

[NikolaiI]

I think you did not get my point. If you use logic then you need to stick to logic. As soon as you say "I believe" that's the end of logical discussion.[/QUOTE]

No you are still missing mine, just as badly. Nevermind then. No use going further.

[Lote-Tree]

No you are still missing mine, just as badly. Nevermind then. No use going further.

Let me clarify:

Logic:

2+2=4

It is never =5.

But if you say you "believe" that 2+2=5 then end of discussion.

[NikolaiI]

Let me clarify:

Logic:

2+2=4

It is never =5.

But if you say you "believe" that 2+2=5 then end of discussion.

You are not speaking logically.

The mode, the word, belief, is not equivalient to saying "I believe that 2+2=5"

Are you following me? I am not saying anything about a debate between two persons whether one reality or another reality is true, the two of which realities are contrasted or opposite. You brought that up in this post. I am pointing out due to what you said before, that it was completely illogical, and I will have to make a great effort it seems, to bring you back to this point.

You said faith and reason are not the same. This is true. But you seem to extrapolate from this that they are opposites, or that they are in conflict. This is not true at all. Now we are talking about the two specific virtues, Faith and Reason. We are not talking about people arguing about opposites or contrasts....do you follow at all??????