Does God Exist?

Animals can display guilt for sure, but that doesn't mean they perceive/conceive the action as atrocious. If the other animal they display their 'guilt' to wouldn't react to this 'atrocious' action at first, there also would be no display of guilt. So it seems to me the guilty display or the seemingly awareness that they did something atrocious is mainly communication to other animals they have a relationship of some kind with.
When you see after this kind of communication how soon everything seems to be forgiven and forgotten they certainly don't seem to have lingering thoughts on it.

 

Many scientists are in awe of a lot of aspects of nature, however in many respects things seem to becoming less 'miraculous' the more we discover. That is, many scientists are continuously finding ways to explain several of these awe inspiring aspects of nature through natural process, which doesn't require intervening miracles.

We don't need to be pessimistic regarding everything in nature, however it is good to attempt to remain objective, for scientists and for people who entertain the notions that correspond with this discussion. So to say something like "God exists" based on one example of the atmosphere providing a perceivably good aspect to human life, which can be countered in one argument with a way the atmosphere threatens human livelihood should give a person pause.

We used to ascribe to the geocentric model of the Sun revolving around the Earth, then that fell apart and we came to learn that the Earth Revolves around a rather (by Universal standards) middle size Sun, in a unremarkable part of the Galaxy, surrounded by more Galaxies than we can genuinely grasp.

I do find it fascinating that a lot of things pertaining to humans work in concert so well, to give us an opportunity to live, breath, etc. however to deny all the death, disease, and failures that also plague humans is to deny reality. I think the notions Writer suggested of extinction on Earth being more prevalent than extant species is another issue to consider, when pondering if there is some invisible Buddy God in our corner looking out for us.

There is some functioning in humans that I find really awesome, such as the liberties being bipedal allows for us. It is my opinion that this fact alone is one of the keys for us to being so much more advanced than our primate cousins. However there are things that make me scratch my head in regards to the notion of the efficiency with how things work for humans, particularly if we are to invoke sentient designer(s) into the picture, such as our eyes. A visual system which requires the incoming stimuli to traverse to the back of the brain to process? has blind spots? only can perceive a tiny portion of the space we occupy? Is the sense relied on by most and leaves many requiring the use of aids such as glasses to support the sense in our life? Using the notions of a geocentric universe falling as precedent, I am careful at ascribing to anthropocentric notions as well.

We have ~1300 Cranial Capacity, suggesting our brains are limited. Given this scope, as well as our biological imperatives to perpetuate our existence, I can attribute many aspects of wonder in awe we experience in regards to the universe to these features. Color that with other natural phenomena and I think this can provide reason enough, for me, to continue exploring the wonders of the cosmos.


Given said limitations, I can understand a certain viewpoint wanting to attribute the mysteries of the cosmos to divine agency. I really got no qualms with that, however, I think it could behoove some theists to leave some of the texts in the millenia old dusts and perhaps start attempt to provide more modern notions regarding direct religious/spiritual experience in the present. Also, some stupefying remarks which fly in the face of logic and provocative comments for the sake of it, particularly from those who are older (let's say a Pat Roberts for instance) really make me question the value of these religious belief systems.

 

I recently finished reading O.W. Wilson's The Meaning of Human Existence which was something of a disappointment because it's about how the universe works according to science. I don't think science can ever give us meaning in the more meaningful sense of why-- what is the significance for us that reality is the way it is? I don't think religion can either, but it is concerned with ultimate meaning and contains a lot of the distilled wisdom of humanity on that subject. Life, it seems to me, is thoroughly ambiguous. Nothing is certain, not even that. But if we take it as a challenge it can be exciting. The ambiguity dignifies us by forcing us to make choices about who we are, what we believe, and what it's all about. The quest gives zest to life. Pat Robertson and his ilk want to close our minds and line their pockets. Their form of religion is a mind-crippling disease. I think God is a process, not a judgmental Dude in the Sky.

 

Never a judgement but only an anger for when you kept shoving those lima beans in my mouth and making me gag and not able to breathe, when I said I did not want them...

anger became all kinds of mean things, as you kept shoving anyway.....

where did that come from?

 

Realistically, what percentage of the pain suffering and death would you say mankind could prevent if they made the effort?

The earth is capable of producing enough food so no one is hungry so why are there children dying from starvation? Proper sanitation has been known for thousands of years so why are children still getting sick and dying from poor sanitation? Why is there increasing deforestation and desertification reducing the ability of the Earth to produce the food that is needed? Why are massive amounts of symptom medications being produced while the finding of actual cures is being ignored? What about vaccinations, many diseases can be vaccinated against but in many countries vaccination is almost unheard of? And what about war?

Okay may be not all but if mankind really wanted stop all this I would say they could immediately end over 90% of all this pain, suffering and death.

But yeah this all God's fault, so why doesn't he do something about it?

 

Personally, I think science and religion will eventually merge as they are both looking at the same thing.

 

Good example, thanx for bringing it up.

In actuality much can be done by mankind to mediate the effect of malaria but then it is mostly a problem in third world countries so why bother?

 

One can only hope but sometimes I wonder what those who call for a Godless world will do when their runaway Godless "science" comes home to roost.

 

Elaborate what that means because on the surface I envision a person in a lab coat staring down a microscope at bacteria and then a person sitting on a church pew reading passages from the bible.

There perhaps could be some overlap like in a venn diagram, science definitely has began to study some aspects of religion but what do you mean merge?

 

At first instance I agree, although it does depends on the details what is ment here indeed. I think the division between science and religion is very useful and good to have, but yes both religion and science are in the end things we use to make sense, find purpose and answers regarding the universe, our being etc. They will not merge as such but if we will progress imo they (or better said the people that make up the scientific and religious groups) will not oppose eachother as much as they often do (especially on particular issues I guess).
After all, science and religion as gathering terms or abstract concepts do not oppose or contradict eachother in reality without humans to actually do or see it so. Same with the belief in God or even a unicorn (popular atheist comparison/analogy) and daily life/reality. They do not oppose or contradict or are in conflict with eachother on itself. Only if that person at some point perceives it like that himself, or if others oppose this belief

 

Science, or scientific efforts and research are often made with the best intent possible. As long as this doesn't change I have a hard time seeing it as 'godless' or evil/bad. There seems rarely to be any need or purpose in judging such a whole entire thing as science (or religion for that matter) as bad or godless etc. It almost always becomes a misleading generalisation.

I guess this seems to be matter of perspective then Because yes, we are discovering more and more. But it is also so that every answered question often brings up 2 new ones. And the more we know, the more we realize it is all miraculously complicated and mindbaffling (certainly when we realize this at first) to get to know how cells, molecules, atoms, etc. etc. work and on what a relatively tiny spot in the universe we are, and how different the world looks beyond our atmosphere. I did hear scientists say stuff like this themselves too. It's not really a problem to stay in awe or regard it as miraculous even when we keep getting more answers. Btw, I would never choose the word intervene or intervention in regards to miracles myself. Maybe a semantics issue I don't require them either. But ok, maybe im nitpicking now


edit: spelling

 

To guerillabedlam: It's like what Okie was talking about earlier. Religion gives us the why and Science gives us the how. It's two different ways of seeing and experiencing the same reality. Just because once is true doesn't mean the other is false. Both can be true simultaneously when considered non-dualistically.

 

^
I like how simple yet clear you wrote that.

I would say I have no clue about those percentages but I am saying mankind is not responsible for malaria. At first instance it can be also be argued if mankind or humans as a whole are responsible for other people dying from starvation (maybe it is attributed on mankind by ourselves but we are not as uniform in thinking and action as 'mankind' sounds. I would almost say unfortunately but hey, this lack of uniformity is not always so bad). We do have the means to limit or maybe even completely stop kids dying of malaria though. And also to eradicate all hunger. And to me it seems we can just as easily conclude to thank God for that as blaming God for creating malaria parasites in the first place

 

I find the biological imperative which I mentioned, and is a scientific explanation, a meaningful reason for explaining why reality is the way it is.

Perhaps you mean meaningful in a more abstract sense?

 

What about Philosophy? I've had exponentially more Why's addressed from philosophy (including theistic philosophers ) than I have religion.

 

Philosphy and religion seem even more connected than religion and science will ever be. That's probably also why they share a subforum here, instead of being seperated.

 

To guerillabedlam: To me philosophy is more intellectual while religion focuses more on the best way to live life in relation to others. I would consider Christianity a movement though not a religion.

 

How does this rationale work? Particularly when the own adherents identify with Christianity as a religion, in particular when getting tax exemptions.

 

Ethics is a definite branch of philosophy. And ethics is all about how we live in relation to others.

 

Everytime I see this thread title I think God exists less and less.