Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by mhailey

atheist or agnostic? If you are truly and atheist, I would love to hear your arguments as to where everything came from, how life began, and what our purpose is.

Where everything came from?

--This one is easy. What exists now has always existed and will always exist because there is nothing but existence. However, the form of its existence is ever changing. There is no begging to existence or end to it. The idea of the first is conceptually easier to understand, but ultimately many logical problems result.

How life began?

--Its kinda already been put out there. the elements combined in the right form to create "life" as you call it. The real issue is how to define "life." A "life form" could be a very simple combination of molecules, molicules combine and fall apart all the time. Why couldn't they, in the uncountable number of times they have bonded and unbonded created an animate object? If you throw numbers and symbols on a page eventually you will get an equation. All that matters is how many times you do it.

What our purpose?

--Why does there have to be some higher purpose? We have no "Higher" Purpose. We might have our own pusposes, goals, and impulses but those have no religous place. It would be nice to think we as a species have some purpose that can be discovered by comuning with a higher power. However, I think it is wishful thinking.

Even though noone asked, it's on the tip of your brain: How would society exist without religion, the lack of values would result in anarchism.

--There is what some people call the golden rule: treat others as you would be treated. I behave accoding to societal norms because generally they are norms for a reason outside of religon. For example, the various Jewish customs of not eating pork etc were very beneficial because during that time of history they made you healthy. There are a few areas I disagree with the current religous traditions. But I don't make it a point to flaunt that. If society didn't have religon it would still have reasons to be as good as it is now, and there would still be people dying for no reason. Anarchy is no the nessecary result, but one of many that could occur.


Atheist/Agnostic

--God in any form must remain undefined. This is because to define him is to make him limited in some way. God cannot be limited. If he or she is, the result is not GOD. But then by saying god cannot be limited we are ultimately limiting him. Basically, we have to say god completely demolishes any notion of logic, science, or disiplin we have come up with. This forces us to reject these things. I am not willing to reject the observations the keenest human minds have made about the world, and argumentation. Thus I am not willing to accept god's existence. That might make me an atheist or an agnostic depending on what you think they are.

There are alot of debates on this and it will go on forever. However, the result of the debate over gods existence is:
---the people trying to prove god exists cannot prove it
--the people trying to prove god does not exist cannot prove it

This happens because the people trying to prove gods exisstence reject logic, they have no choice. The people trying to prove god does not exist embrace it, they are on two diffrent planes of discussion and won't ever meet. This is the leap of faith that many people talk about. You have to take the leap and say God completely obliterates any way of thinking the human can handle. Denying the validity of the product of the human mind is the only way to get to god.

This only applies to the Judeo Christian God. I have not done enough reasearch on other religions to legitimately claim this is the case with them as well.

As Hunter pointed out, pulling the god card means you automatically win. It cannot be argued against, there is no way to prove anything either way on the issue. Saying "God did it" simply takes any responsibility from your hands for producing a logical or empiracle arguement. Thus you deny the validity of the product of the humand mind: Logic, etc.




This discussion has been done many many times and will be done many many more without any improvement because nothing can be shown at all. Philosophy has moved on to other areas. For a more interesting topic and perhaps another way to debate this question you could look into naturalized epistemology. That is epistemology turned into science, the direct result has been neurology. This looks directly into the issue of the soul in an indirect manner. The soul, do we have one? If so what is it? Is it matter? if it is matter where is it found? If it is not matter does it exist, considering all we know is matter. If the soul does exist, what of you compromises it? Would it be your conciousness? Well information discovered in neurology tends to show that your "conciousness" if that exists at all is physical and is the result of systems in your brain functioning togather. If your conciousness is physical, then it probably is not your soul. If your soul is not your conciousness then why do you care about it?

There are many many issues in that area that directly affect this debate, mainly because it has been posited for a long time that your soul is your conciousness. Descartes even thought he could locate the point at which the physical world and your soul connect: the pituitary gland.

How about this one: if your soul is not physical, but your body is, how can your soul affect your body. Or even better: if your soul is not physical but the molecule alchol is, how can alchol affect your soul/conciousness.

This is all fun stuff to kick around, but let me assure you that there is not answer that can be found through discussion. If you are a believer, thats great. Your faith is a strength. Use it as you will, but please be tolerant of others who cannot make that leap. If you are an atheist, thats great too. Don't push to hard. Be respectful because noone likes an A.......

I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, it is the result of my exhuastive study of the area. I think there are many more productive areas to discuss, don't get too bogged down in this.




Oh, and for the record: I don't wear turtle necks, I hate coffee, and I am a former footbal player that weighs about 275 pounds.