Is the existence of "God" possible?

[Ariana Binetta]

The physical evidence in favor of God, as far as I know, is flat zero. And "God," as all the monotheists and polytheists that I'm aware of conceive of Him, seems to violate a great many known laws of the universe. So there's no evidence for, and a lot of evidence against.

And yet--maybe if we all look deep enough into our hearts and souls there may be a small place where He could exist, and even needs to fill up...! Maybe a very superior God exists in some strange and remote physical or metaphysical part of the universe unknown to our five senses and limited human reasoning processes/power. Maybe we need to directly harness the power of computers to our brains so we see the world in a much more rounded, deep, 3-D, and multi-dimensional sense?

[softwareNerd]

This suggests to me that you believe in "souls" or some similar mystical idea, though I certainly may be in error thinking that. Do you believe that there are entities of consciousness roaming around out there?

I'll add that the key question is not whether ghost "can" exist, but whether they do. If some part of a human being did become a ghost, then we'd still have Objectivism as a philosophy for humans. What would apply to ghosts? Obviously, since they're fictional, it's impossible to say.

Point is not that ghosts cannot exist, merely that they do not.

(This is different from the "God cannot exist" case because the idea of God is usually put forward as a nearly identity-less, omnipotent entity.)

Edited November 28, 2005 by softwareNerd

[She]

She, I re-read your post, and the comments about the brain in the vat and the purple space goats apply.

Your position is agnosticism. Here's my personal example:

There is no proof that pink pixies with purple polka dot hats created the second ring of Saturn.

There is no proof that pink pixies with purple polka dot hats did not create the second ring of Saturn.

Therefore, I'll be agnostic and avoid making any conclusions about pink pixies with purple polka dot hats creating the second ring of Saturn.

Of course, you can substitute an infinite number of equally absurd and arbitrary assertions. The question is, is it better to be agnostic on every single one of these claims? Or to dismiss them as what they are: absurd and arbitrary?

Note that knowledge does not require infallibility. If it did, no one would know anything.

Thank you very much. Nonetheless, I think we are comparing apples and oranges. I think The God Question has quite a bit more mass than Goats and Pixies and the Matrix Movies.

If my understanding is correct, the God question has been part of the Human structure for thousands of years. What fascinates me are the island cultures or the remote tribal cultures that have no overlap with other cultures, yet they still create Gods. Along side of humans, there have been cute stories about little people or unicorns, mostly to please the children but there have been massive rituals, intricate cultures, human deaths, wars and so forth in the name of the Gods. The history of religion parallels the history of Man. You might dismiss that as a fairy story but I think doing that is a convenient reach. To dismiss it is to dismiss the history of my own species. There’s weight there that I don’t believe is as easily dismissed as pixies, but at the same time the way the religions set up the worship of their gods is just plain odd and irrational also.

Am I to believe that all those people and cultures were, and still are, just irrational creatures who never think and Ayn Rand and the Objectivists are the only folk who have realized it? I think that's an insult to a great mind, and more likely to be compared with fairy tales than the phenomenon of the God question.

I think if you have read my reasons behind the agnostic stance, you see that isn’t based on what I WANT to think. In other words, I didn’t choose the agnostic stand and then try to make my facts fit. I think many people both theist and atheist try to make that plan workable and they like to call it rational. I don’t believe it is.

(I used actual events to discuss my points. Flat earth and my own experiences, but this is answered with Goats, Pixies, and Matrix Movies? )

Nor is it a way to avoid making a choice. It’s is irrational to make a choice when you don’t have all the information to make the choice. I can’t see that we, as humans, have all the information to make a clear choice without allowing the emotional “but I want it to be that way” to come into play. Agnosticism seems like the only rational position to take. There is no proof either way.

[AisA]

There is no proof either way.

I ask you again: what would constitute proof of the non-existence of something?

The flat earth question concerned an attribute -- shape-- of something that was known to exist: the earth. The evidence that was uncovered proved that the shape is round, not flat, triangular, pentagonal or any of numerous other possibilities. This is not a proof of the non-existence of an entity. It is a refinement of our knowledge of something that does exist.

The principle you are unaware of, apparently, is that one cannot prove a negative, and for good reason. Proof consists of facts, data, evidence, etc, which, taken together, tells us something about that which exists. That which does not exist cannot have any affect on reality whatsoever; that which does not exist will not give rise to any facts, it will not leave behind any evidence or data -- it will have no manifestation in reality and no affect on reality at all. This is why you will never be able to find proof that something does not exist. Proof only relates to that which does exist.

"There is no proof either way" applies to an unlimited number of hypothetical things, because there is no way to prove non-existence. Thus, the lack of proof against the existence of something is not evidence of anything.

Nor is the fact that many people believe in god evidence that he exists. The number of people who adhere to a theory is not an indicator of its truth or falsehood.

[She]

Oh My Goodness... I wasn't talking about the flat or round physical earth. You completely missed the point of that example.

I'm aware of the theory, however, do you realize that if it applied, exactly as you have described, in this particular case, then it would never occur to us to have this conversation? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As for the application of popular opinion being the arbitrator, again, I think you missed the point, but I can see how you are making that one fit your requirement, however, I do not believe you ...in all integrity...really think I was discussing "popular opinion over the centuries and the different cultures."

Um, grin...Besides Ariana, what time do the Real Objectivists arrive? Do you honestly think any of these responses and reactions that I've been given adhere to Objectivism? Think of Dagny when she crashed into the Gulch and the attitude with which Galt and others had toward her. Even if you have no way to agree with my point, as Galt had no way to agree with Dagny's thinking....

Edited November 28, 2005 by She

[xavier]

The physical evidence in favor of God, as far as I know, is flat zero.

And yet--maybe if we all look deep enough into our hearts and souls there may be a small place where He could exist, and even needs to fill up...!

If you have faith that god exists, then that is your choice, just don't do it under the name of reason.

If my understanding is correct, the God question has been part of the Human structure for thousands of years.

Is sanity statistical? (This is my version of what AisA said.) If you grew up in an insane asylum, does that mean it's justified for you to be insane as well? If you grew up with a bunch of Nazis, is it right to be a Nazi as well?

Nor is it a way to avoid making a choice. It’s is irrational to make a choice when you don’t have all the information to make the choice.

The case where you currently do not have enough information is very different from the case where it is logically impossible to ever have enough information.

The principle you are unaware of, apparently, is that one cannot prove a negative, and for good reason.

I was unaware of that, too. Thanks!

Um, grin...Besides Ariana, what time do the Real Objectivists arrive? ...Think of Dagny when she crashed into the Gulch and the attitude with which Galt and others had toward her. Even if you have no way to agree with my point, as Galt had no way to agree with Dagny's thinking....

Someone who uses reasons to arrive at conclusions isn't an Objectivist? Galt disagreed with, and was fighting, Dagny, for most of the book.

Edited November 28, 2005 by xavier

[softwareNerd]

... the God question has been part of the Human structure for thousands of years. What fascinates me are the island cultures or the remote tribal cultures that have no overlap with other cultures, yet they still create Gods.

From history, it appears that as man looked for causes of various phenomenon, he was stumped. From his experience of living being as actors enacting causes, it seems pretty natural that ancient man hypothesized the existence of some super-being. It also seems pretty natural that ancient man thought there was someone in the sky causing thunder and someone else causing the wind and another person moving the sun around the earth and so on.

That's history. There is no logical basis to think any such thing today.

For a modern educated, adult man to postulate the existence of God is pretty close to postulating the existence of any other arbitrary existent: gremlins or otherwise. For a philosopher to postulate the existence of God -- in the sense of an omnipotent, identity-less being -- is actually more far-fetched than postulating the existence of a ghost or a gremlin, which might be defined as having a more limited character.

As for your remark about not getting Objectivist replies, the obvious implication seem to be that Objectivists would have been more benevolent in their answers. So, in return you -- as a newbie -- think it useful to make a remark like that? Asking, "what time do the Real Objectivists arrive" isn't exactly a way for a newbie to make friends on a forum. Or, am I misinterpreting your remark?

[She]

I thought about this on the way home from work and I need to take a moment to make a clarification. I'm a very strong and forceful woman. (Most Objectivist women are, I think.) I am very passionate about life. I do life with both hands and a grin in every arena. It is a joy.

Still, I am new here and I often forget that it is very difficult to understand new people when you have no history of interaction to guide you and you have no clues other than their words. You have no way of really understanding if it is a steely glint or a twinkle of humor in my eye as I write. Nor I of you. This is how it is on forums and I often forget that.

I have attempted to make my words somewhat lighthearted with the emoticons and the manner that I produce the phrases, but it may not come off like I intend and I bear the responsibility of that. I do not mean anything in a small, mean, or negative way. I have no time for that. The edge you may see behind my light words are the result of my passion for life, and Objectivism. Most of the time I'm grinning while I write. I like intelligent conversation. But I do hold us all to a higher standard in a "Galt's Gulch" forum.

(Capitalized "Objectivism" - softwareNerd)

Edited November 29, 2005 by softwareNerd

[She]

As for your remark about not getting Objectivist replies, the obvious implication seem to be that Objectivists would have been more benevolent in their answers. So, in return you -- as a newbie -- think it useful to make a remark like that? Asking, "what time do the Real Objectivists arrive" isn't exactly a way for a newbie to make friends on a forum. Or, am I misinterpreting your remark?

I've addressed the latter part of this quote in a separate post but the first line of this comment does require a mention. I wasn't expecting benevolence or even friends...but rational thought.

I dunno:

Some posts look like people are assuming I believe in God and am defending the existence of God. I'm not.

So, I'm scratching my head over that.

Then it seems like some reactionary stuff to the idea where I say I can't see the rational thought in being either theist or atheist. Maybe that rattled cages or something?

Some of these responses just seem all Jim Taggerty and Wesley Mouchy. A version of "That's Just Your Theory!"

I really don't know what to do with that, so if I seem mildly freaked out those are some of the reasons for it.

[gags]

You still haven't answered the statement that it's not possible to prove a negative. On the other hand, if you have some proof of the existence of God, bring it forth so we can evaluate it. Saying that man's knowledge is limited and we are not omniscent are hardly proof of God's existence.

[Inspector]

Some posts look like people are assuming I believe in God and am defending the existence of God. I'm not.

So, I'm scratching my head over that.

That's because you made the following statement:

Am I to believe that all those people and cultures were, and still are, just irrational creatures who never think and Ayn Rand and the Objectivists are the only folk who have realized it? I think that's an insult to a great mind, and more likely to be compared with fairy tales than the phenomenon of the God question.

Which is in fact a (fallacious) argument in favor of the validity of the belief in "God." You are defending the people who believe in "God" and are thus "defending the existence of God."

Your tone of, allow me to paraphrase: "Well what makes you think Ayn Rand knows better than millions of people throughout history who believed in God?!?" Is also NOT appreciated here.

If you're really this Objectivist that you claim to be (and it's Objectivism, not objectivism, BTW), then you need to wake up and realize what you're saying and how you're saying it.

Right now your post, with its mockery of Ayn Rand and defense of Theism, along with your subsequent "why the attitude, my brothers" post paint you as a non-Objectivist troll who uses words like "John Galt" to cover your tracks when you insult us all. If that picture doesn't fit who you really are, then you have some explaining to do...

Edited November 29, 2005 by Inspector

[softwareNerd]

...The edge you may see behind my light words are the result of my passion for life, and Objectivism. Most of the time I'm grinning while I write....

Welcome to the forum. Henceforth, I'll picture a cheshire cat when I read your posts .

"... your cat grins like that?" "It's a Cheshire cat," said the Duchess

[Don't overcompensate with extra emoticons now! ]

Back on topic...

Just to make sure: am I right in assuming that you're agnostic, not a theist? If so, I'd advise you to focus on agnosticism vs. atheism in this thread. A discussion of the morality and rationality of theists deserves a thread of its own.

If neither side in this discussion is theistic, what one needs to focus on, is the reason for being agnostic as opposed to being atheistic. There are a couple of reasons that I can glean from your posts: one is the historical preponderance of religion; the second is the lack of real proof against the idea of God.

I tried to address the former in my previous post. The posts of other members have tried to address the latter. Is there any other reason that you are agnostic rather than atheistic?

[She]

That's because you made the following statement:

Which is in fact a (fallacious) argument in favor of the validity of the belief in "God." You are defending the people who believe in "God" and are thus "defending the existence of God."

Your tone of, allow me to paraphrase: "Well what makes you think Ayn Rand knows better than millions of people throughout history who believed in God?!?" Is also NOT appreciated here.

If you're really this Objectivist that you claim to be (and it's Objectivism, not objectivism, BTW), then you need to wake up and realize what you're saying and how you're saying it.

Right now your post, with its mockery of Ayn Rand and defense of Theism, along with your subsequent "why the attitude, my brothers" post paint you as a non-Objectivist troll who uses words like "John Galt" to cover your tracks when you insult us all. If that picture doesn't fit who you really are, then you have some explaining to do...

WOW!!! What great mind do you think I was referring to?

Okay... just to be clear.. I’m not grinning right now.

If you, in anyway, believe that any part of this Philosophy offers a free ride to arrogance, or that you are smarter than the average bear because you have the "intelligence" to call yourself an Objectivist without doing one bit of thinking for yourself then you have missed the boat she invited you to ride upon. If you let Ayn Rand do your thinking for you, you might as well have slapped her face. I do not jump on bandwagons, not even Ayn Rand's because to do so reduces her ideas into a farce. I have more respect for her than that.

This topic asks "Can God Exist" and my answer is "yes if" but only under the qualifications that I put forth in my post. I do not defend theists. I do not defend atheists. I don’t think I even used the word agnostic. But you have read some of the words and not the idea they present.

The entire post was this simple idea..."What if?" and MY conclusion was that the "What if" of God hasn’t yet been answered to MY satisfaction, either way. And I defend my right to ask "What if" until my dying day. If you were an Objectivist, you would realize that the entire post is an "Onomatopoeia" for this philosophy. (Ariana caught it, but she only gave you a hint.)

"What if" is the basis for all new production and new ideas.

"What if" is how you get Reardon Metal.

"What if" is how Ayn Rand got her ideas.

I do not blindly accept pulpit pounding the name of God OR the cause of logic. This represents a closed mind. My mind is open to think, to become, and to create. This is because I AM an Objectivist.... a real one... Not a fraud who twists words and meanings in order to destroy an idea because it threatens their own idea. Not a moocher who needs to dismiss or control a mind that asks "what if" in order to feel safe in their own death based beliefs. Not a looter who is sponging off Ayn Rand's mind without producing a single new idea themselves. You might not like or agree with my position on The God Question, but do so because you think for yourself and not because you endlessly rephrase and rehash "Ayn Rand Said So." She deserves your respect and honor which you offer through YOUR Mind. Not hers.

And wait...Big O or little O??? Do you not SEE what kind of thinking that represents?

My Mind is MINE. I have No Explaining to do at any time... unless I choose to. I have illustrated that with my post and your response is the exact response John Galt deplored.

Control through force, threats, or fear is not an option.

"Who Is 'SHE'?"

This post of yours is a beautiful example of exactly what I was thinking that this forum is really about. You have illustrated it to perfection. Thank you.

[xavier]

Agnosticism seems like the only rational position to take. There is no proof either way.

I don’t think I even used the word agnostic. But you have read some of the words and not the idea they present.

See quote above. So what IS your position?

If you were an Objectivist, you would realize that the entire post is an "Onomatopoeia" for this philosophy. (Ariana caught it, but she only gave you a hint.)

What's the purpose of the Onomatopoeia? Why does it require an Objectivist to understand?

This is because I AM an Objectivist.... a real one...

Merely claiming it does not convince me.

You might not like or agree with my position on The God Question, but do so because you think for yourself and not because you endlessly rephrase and rehash "Ayn Rand Said So."

Which post shows dogmatic, unthinking "Objectivism"?

And wait...Big O or little O??? Do you not SEE what kind of thinking that represents?

Ayn Rand created Objectivism, not objectivism. Tell me again who's disrespecting Miss Rand?

My Mind is MINE. I have No Explaining to do at any time... unless I choose to.

You may do whatever you please. But if you post here, with the type of posts you have, you're going to get responses asking for an explanation.

Control through force, threats, or fear is not an option.

Who's advocating force, threats, or fear? Talk about "endlessly rephrase and rehash"...

Edited November 29, 2005 by xavier

[gags]

The entire post was this simple idea..."What if?" and MY conclusion was that the "What if" of God hasn’t yet been answered to MY satisfaction, either way.

And I occasionally wonder, what if there were a Giant Purple Space Goat? That question hasn't yet been answered conclusively either way -- even though I don't see any evidence one exists and I certainly can't prove that one doesn't exist. So where does that leave this discussion?

[EC]

And yet--maybe if we all look deep enough into our hearts and souls there may be a small place where He could exist, and even needs to fill up...! Maybe a very superior God exists in some strange and remote physical or metaphysical part of the universe unknown to our five senses and limited human reasoning processes/power. Maybe we need to directly harness the power of computers to our brains so we see the world in a much more rounded, deep, 3-D, and multi-dimensional sense?

Was this a real post or are you being sarcastic?

Now do you wonder why I find you to be an enigma?

You stated to me that you agree completely with all the Objectivism that you have read and then you post this???

======================================================================================

[i wanted the stuff below in a seperate post]

Instead of asking if god exists which is a nonsensical question why don't we change it instead to the more meaningful-- Why do people think that such an entity called "God" needs to exist in the first place?

Edited November 29, 2005 by EC

[Inspector]

If you, in anyway, believe that any part of this Philosophy offers a free ride to arrogance, or that you are smarter than the average bear because you have the "intelligence" to call yourself an Objectivist without doing one bit of thinking for yourself

Here we go... the cries of "arrogance" and such. Formulaic attempts to wipe out arguments and obfuscate your own actions. You haven't done anything to either apologize or justify your statement. Hoping nobody would notice?

This topic asks "Can God Exist" and my answer is "yes if" but only under the qualifications that I put forth in my post.

You will notice that I didn't criticize you for being a theist, or supporting theism, but for being DISHONEST: for supporting it and then pretending not to support it.

This represents a closed mind. My mind is open to think, to become, and to create. This is because I AM an Objectivist.... a real one...

Here we go... the whole "open mind" bit. Is anyone else seeing the pattern?

but do so because you think for yourself and not because you endlessly rephrase and rehash "Ayn Rand Said So." She deserves your respect and honor which you offer through YOUR Mind. Not hers.

Straw man. I never said anything of the sort. It would be one thing to make an accusation of this kind if I had posted a bunch... you could at least hope that an unwary reader wouldn't notice that I hadn't said anything of the sort... but to think you can pull off a deception of that kind when there is only ONE post that I made.... wow.

And wait...Big O or little O??? Do you not SEE what kind of thinking that represents?

I know what kind of thinking it represents. Do YOU know what kind of thinking it represents to NOT care? Your mistake was simple; nobody would have cared a lick if you had simply said, "oh, right, my bad." But now you defend your position as a righteous one? You incriminate yourself further...

Control through force, threats, or fear is not an option.

Standard troll tactic; to claim censorship. I'm not even a moderator! I can't force you if I wanted to. Seriously, how gullible do you think the people of this board are?

This post of yours is a beautiful example of exactly what I was thinking that this forum is really about. You have illustrated it to perfection. Thank you.

Again, standard trolling.

This response confirms my earlier suspicion (which I wasn't sure of before) that "She" here is a TROLL of the David Kelly persuasion. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, as my post indicated, before. No longer.

Welcome to the forum. Henceforth, I'll picture a cheshire cat when I read your posts .

Ah, but is the cat grinning with you... or AT you? If she's not a troll... she's doing her best to act like one.

Edited November 29, 2005 by Inspector

[She]

See quote above. So what IS your position?

What's the purpose of the Onomatopoeia? Why does it require an Objectivist to understand?

Merely claiming it does not convince me.

Which post shows dogmatic, unthinking "Objectivism"?

Ayn Rand created Objectivism, not objectivism. Tell me again who's disrespecting Miss Rand?

You may do whatever you please. But if you post here, with the type of posts you have, you're going to get responses asking for an explanation.

Who's advocating force, threats, or fear?

I apologize; I haven't gotten the mechanics of the board down just yet. Multiple Quotes....

The first quote you mention wasn't from the original post to which I was meaning in the last post. (got that?) The secondary quote was from an answer to another poster who used the word, and for the sake of brevity....which is a problem for me. ( It's true, I'm wordy) I elected to use their word. I've lost track at this point of who I answered with that.

If you want to call it agnostic. Okay. That's not my word but it fits close enough for us to know what is being meant. I don't call my stance anything. In my understanding, an agnostic requires proof to believe in God. I don't think proof is possible at this time either way, so calling for proof, as an agnostic would, is a waste of time.

The purpose of the Onomatopoeia was because I try very hard to walk my talk in all I do. I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what you are asking in the second part of that. It doesn't "require" an Objectivist in order to be understood but is there for an Objectivist TO understand whereas a Non-Objectivist probably wouldn't.

Your statement that says claiming I'm an Objectivist doesn't convince you, doesn't make sense to me in view of the post from which it was harvested. But Okay. IMOO...One doesn't wear a "badge" of Objectivist for others, or to convince others. Well I don't. BUT when I do make the statement as I have made it here, it's a communication about something important, not a horn blowing flag waving display. Im self validating and don't have an interest in obtaining yours.

Dogmatic thinking? Not so much the content of a given post but the choices to make those things the content. To choose what has been chosen from my posts as the things to be discussed. I find those choices astoundingly dogmatic and it in Some cases, shows me a closed, negative form of thinking.

I can't answer your Big O little o and who is disrespecting Miss Rand comment with a straight face. You made me laugh. Thank you. In my way of understanding it, you just did. Look, if Ayn Rand walked in the room, I'd say Hi Ayn. You'd say Hello Miss Rand. In my understanding of Ayn Rand's work, placing anyone above myself is an insult to her work, especially in 2005. I know I just confused you. Don't even worry about it.

Saying "You might have some 'splainin' to do" is not the same thing as asking for clarification on a confusing point. You know that full well...and having to say this...to have this to deal with... on an Objectivist Board. I'm sorry... You knew better and this was an insult to you and me. and I know that confused you again.

Finally...ditto the insult thing. Don't pretend you are unaware of the nature of Inspector's post. Look, I think each one of you is Ayn Rand’s equal...if you so chose that. To me, that is a high praise but more for HER, not you. and I just confused you again. Rats!

But having said all of this...I see that I do NOT match up with this crowd. I do not belong here at all. I can't be wasting my time explaining concepts that are self evident and which should be largely understood. I'm not interested in the petty minded "he said she said" of Big O's or Little o's or having my T's crossed or my i's dotted, or the sifting of sand. Life is too big for that.

But if you like it, have at it... full tilt boogy. You guys have fun.

Good night. I'm tired

Over and out.

[Inspector]

But having said all of this...I see that I do NOT match up with this crowd. I do not belong here at all.

Indeed you don't!

Notice how the troll, discovered, runs away to leave doubts in our minds as to whether she was a troll. She wants us to doubt our judgment so that future trolls can attack us. Don't fall for it.

[She]

Here we go... the cries of "arrogance" and such. Formulaic attempts to wipe out arguments and obfuscate your own actions. You haven't done anything to either apologize or justify your statement. Hoping nobody would notice?

You will notice that I didn't criticize you for being a theist, or supporting theism, but for being DISHONEST: for supporting it and then pretending not to support it.

Here we go... the whole "open mind" bit. Is anyone else seeing the pattern?

Straw man. I never said anything of the sort. It would be one thing to make an accusation of this kind if I had posted a bunch... you could at least hope that an unwary reader wouldn't notice that I hadn't said anything of the sort... but to think you can pull off a deception of that kind when there is only ONE post that I made.... wow.

I know what kind of thinking it represents. Do YOU know what kind of thinking it represents to NOT care? Your mistake was simple; nobody would have cared a lick if you had simply said, "oh, right, my bad." But now you defend your position as a righteous one? You incriminate yourself further...

Standard troll tactic; to claim censorship. I'm not even a moderator! I can't force you if I wanted to. Seriously, how gullible do you think the people of this board are?

Again, standard trolling.

This response confirms my earlier suspicion (which I wasn't sure of before) that "She" here is a TROLL of the David Kelly persuasion. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, as my post indicated, before. No longer.

Ah, but is the cat grinning with you... or AT you?

My My Inspector. Uh...Wow. Oh Touchy One...Just one note...the "accusation" wasn't directed at YOU. It was a larger response than just your post, you just manged to tip balance with your post. Red head. Got me fired right up, you did. But you don't have to worry about me messin' in your uh...whatever this is, I don't do so well with the masses and collective thinking. You might have noticed.

Alrighty then... It HAS been interesting. You have fun now.

[xavier]

I know I just confused you. Don't even worry about it.

I think I'll take your advice and ignore you from now on.

Instead of asking if god exists which is a nonsensical question why don't we change it instead to the more meaningful-- Why do people think that such an entity called "God" needs to exist in the first place?

SoftwareNerd started addressing this. Ayn Rand claimed that religion is a primitive form of philosophy. She also claimed that the purity, grandeur, and respect that is often attributed to religion rightfully belongs to philosophy. I think both can answer your question.

Religion was an attempt to explain the world, at a time when we lacked the scientific knowledge. Thus, it amounts to nothing more than superstition. Now that reason has given us science, and shown that it is incomparably superior, there is no reason to keep superstition, yet people are reluctant to change. People think tradition has authority.

People sometimes dislike to think for themselves, and assume religious figures are good sources of knowledge. I've always thought a church service is just a bunch of people, each one assuming that the guy next to him has a proof that god exists, when in reality nobody has any such thing.

People sometimes say "I'm a god-fearing man" or "I go to church every week" as though that makes them morally superior. To some people, it does, and thus encourages this behavior.

Edited November 29, 2005 by xavier

[EC]

I new most of the above but thanks for making my somewhat rhetorical question more explicit.

My answer is that there is no such "need" for God(s) for all the reasons you listed and many, many more.

I was however trying to drive to the point that most "believer's" think for whatever reason that the universe could not always have existed which is a contradiction and that some consciousness must have existed prior to somehow "cause" the universe, which is illogical.

[Park Zoo]

What fascinates me are the island cultures or the remote tribal cultures that have no overlap with other cultures, yet they still create Gods.

I find this a strong argument against religion. Look at the sketchy history of the concept of Deity. Look how it was postulated by awe-stricken cavemen, and how it grew alongside human society. In hunting societies He's a powerful animal. In pastoral societies, God is a shepherd; in warrior societies He's an awesome fighter. Next He is a master engineer who designed the universe as a big machine.

It's not that we have no evidence for God. It's that we have too much! And all the evidence shows that it's a man-made idea.

[Vanderlanden]

I wasn't the one who inquired about your definition of consciousness.

However, my question was aimed at this statement you made;

This statement implies that since you (which I assume by "you" you mean any human, not just "you" as a reference to the other poster) can't touch consciousness physically, it is indestructible. If there are other causes of destruction besides humans, then there could be other causes for the destruction of consciousness. I do not see any way you can derive that consciousness is indestructible based on current scientific knowledge, or simply by a man's inability to "touch it".

This suggests to me that you believe in "souls" or some similar mystical idea, though I certainly may be in error thinking that. Do you believe that there are entities of consciousness roaming around out there?

I believe that our consciousness is that which is AWARE of something. If you build a robot and provide it with all the technology it needs to interact with its environment (identifying objects, their state etc.), then you have an "intelligent" machine that "knows" what its environment is like, but you don't have SOMEONE, just SOMETHING. You just have a set of some mechanical subsystems interoperating and thus forming the whole system called robot. But you don't have anything that's AWARE of itself. I'm sure you agree that a mechanical system isn't awareness.

Also, how could we have free choice if conciousness was material. The very idea of choice would be false because in that case our actions would be subdued to the laws of cause and effect. Our "decisions" would be just products of the mechanics inside of us and the whole term would loose its meaning.

If you think that our conciousness is material, then I don't know why you must distinguish between "living BEINGS" and things (stones, water) at all, since they would all be just the same and differ only by the complexity of how they are build up and by the combination of different kinds of material. Whenever you talked to a guy on the street, you would just be sending some audible input into "it", triggering a highly complex mechanical reaction in "it" that produces an answer from its mouth. You wouldn't really be talking to someone, what you would be doing wouldn't be any different than operating with a cashpoint.

[RationalBiker]

I believe that our consciousness is that which is AWARE of something.

Okay, you said a lot of stuff, but you didn't answer my question. Perhaps it's my fault, and I need to be more specific. Do you believe in "souls"? Do you believe that their are entities of consciousness out there that are not part of living human beings? Do you believe in ghosts (consciousness that apparently survives the body's death)? Do you believe that rocks have consciousness and are aware of other existents?