do you believe there is a GOD?

<p>Ha, what if there IS a god and he’s actually a real jerk. Then he wouldn’t have to explain anything to anyone.</p>

<p>I was raised Roman Catholic, but I’ve grown disenchanted with organized religion in general, and I now consider myself to be more agnostic than anything else. I’m going to play devil’s advocate and argue for the religious side, however, because I feel like the teams here are kind of imbalanced.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>According to Roman Catholic doctrine, if I remember correctly, only people who know of Jesus’ existence and therefore had a chance to follow him and yet decided not to would be denied entrance to heaven.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>DURR. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Scientists have traced Homo sapiens sapiens’ genetics to a Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. Sure they lived thousands of years apart, but I’m assuming you actually didn’t believe that creationism as told in Genesis is true (many Roman Catholics don’t either), so I’m guessing your argument was that 6 billion people could not possibly have been traced to one mother and one father.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You can be wrong, and then you can be wronger than wrong. Believing in mythical pink unicorns isn’t on par with believing in a god, no matter how badly you want to ridicule the religious. It’s like saying, “I believe that saying ‘The Earth is flat’ is an equally wrong statement as ‘The Earth is round,’ because the Earth is not round and actually flattened at the poles.” Two different degrees of wrong. Your argument is invalid.</p>

<p>

</p>

<ol>
<li>Doctrine doesn’t state that he needs us to pray, only that he’d like us to pray. The idea is that if you disappoint him without repenting, he’ll deny you entrance into heaven.</li>
<li>I’m guessing you mean “good,” since omnipotence and omniscience have nothing to do with how one is going to go about one’s business (for example, I might know that global warming is caused by human activity, but I won’t press the issue because I want to rub it in their faces when our world starts burning to the ground). The way I was taught, evil exists because we have the capacity of free will*. God so loved the world that he wanted to give us the chance to love him back. We could choose to do evil because God wanted us to be free. </li>
<li>Mmm, you’re assuming that god actually did set forth all these religions. For all we know, God set forth one religion and humans, in their knack for screwing up, decided to change things up a bit, bringing forth a host of other religions.</li>
</ol>

<p>

</p>

<p>This has nothing to do with the topic, but if string theory and brainworld scenarios are true, there could be entire universes existing alongside of us; we just can’t see or perceive them because the strings making up the photons and fundamental particles of our universe are close-looped into the brane in which our universe resides. So our entire universe could be a little speck floating on a brane in an ocean of other branes we can’t perceive because string theory sets forth disheartening ideas. </p>

<p>To all the people quoting Carlin or Einstein or -insert intellectual here-, please come up with your own arguments instead of appealing to authority WHICH, holy crap, happens to be something many atheists regularly accuse the religious of.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why? I mean, who gets to pick what degree of ridiculousness some belief has? From his point of view, the two are exactly equivalent. From yours, they’re entirely different. There’s no consensus on how reasonable belief in a god is. On this matter, his beliefs hold the exact same weight as yours.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t understand this approach. Why would God love the world so much? Wouldn’t that make God very narcissistic? What would make God love his own creation any more or less?</p>

<p>Furthermore, why would God loving the world imply his wanting humans to love him back? Loving something isn’t necessarily a symmetric notion. I love Rachel McAdams, but I do think it’s a bit unreasonable to require that she loves me back. On top of that, what does God really get out of us loving him? What’s his motivation here? And why does he appear so needy, for someone who is beyond human emotions? </p>

<p>Even skipping over all this, most Christians describe God as good and loving. But if God cares more about our having free will so that we can worship and love him, “goodness” must not be a very high priority for him. </p>

<p>Ultimately, God is responsible for the evil actions of his creations. If God creates someone, and gives them the power to perform evil upon others, God is responsible for the evil behavior performed. I’m not sure I can create a sufficiently apt analogy, but I will try this with a pet. A dog owner might allow his pet to behave in any way he wants. That is his option as the pet owner. On the other hand, when the dog mauls the neighboring three year old, the responsibility lies entirely on the owner, and not the pet. The pet was simply behaving in the way it was enabled to by the owner. </p>

<p>Similarly, victims of evil on earth should blame God - as it’s God’s decision to allow for the existence of evil that allows them to be victims.</p>

<p>None of this, to me, is evidence against the existence of God. But I do believe that if God exists, he is certainly not a loving or good God. He might be an uninvolved God, or even worse, a sadistic and cruel God, but definitely neither loving or good. At least for this reason, I think we should reject belief the Christian God.</p>

<p>the only unreasonable view is atheism. for a person to be sure that something does not exist, they by definition will need to be aware of everything that does exist. since this is not possible, they reasonably cannot say that something does not exist. in other words, knowing with certainty that something does not exist requires first being aware of all things that do exist. at most they can be agnostics. </p>

<p>i recommend people reading the book “permission to believe” which has several such logical arguments and is quite convincing and got great reviews on amazon.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Asimov’s Axiom (sort of). A belief in a God, though perhaps scientifically unsound or illogical, can be explained as a result of social necessity. For example, religion likely begun as a response to the need to explain things that could not yet be explained. Organized religion propagates a social function as a way for people to commune (a personal benefit) and agree on a particular set of laws based on straightforward common beliefs (a group benefit). In this respect, it is not illogical to see why religion is as widespread as it is, and why people choose to follow it. Now, you might say that a belief in flying pink unicorns also has a social purpose, but the majority of people will discount it as a particularly trivial purpose. </p>

<p>Therefore, the belief in flying pink unicorns can be considered more unreasonable than a belief in a god because a) religion can serve a beneficial personal purpose and b) organized religion can serve a beneficial societal purpose. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m going to have a hard time explaining this since I also happened to get caught up on this while considering my own religion. In Roman Catholicism, it is assumed that God is inherently a just and loving god, and on that assumption is how every other argument in this respect is created. Trying to explain why God is just and loving would then be a circular argument. I’ve yet to see a convincing counterargument that doesn’t involve this fallacy, but it’s not really something I go around discussing so someone else might be able to comment on this. If, however, we assume that God is inherently good, everything else falls into place.</p>

<p>A few further addresses to your same argument, listed without an explanation as, like I said, these particular things happen to be considered intrinsic to the Roman Catholic God, and subjected to my interpretations (others might want to also comment here, especially if you’re religion differs fairly substantially from Roman Catholicism): </p>

<ul>
<li><p>God wants us to love him back because it’s assumed that everyone who truly loves another person (and gets into a proper relationship) will expect love in return. Sure it’s a very human expectation, but most gods have very anthropomorphic qualities.</p></li>
<li><p>God would value goodness as second to love. The way most people have explained it would be like this: Would you rather have your children follow you without thinking about it for themselves, acting like robots (this simile is an important indicator of how they feel about behavior vs. free will), or have them choose their own path and still ultimately do good? Ideally, you would want them to do good on their own.</p></li>
<li><p>But humans have a capacity to think for themselves, so while an argument can be made to blame God, the creation would bear most of the blame. A more apt metaphor would be that God is like a parent and humanity like his grown children (since we’re talking about humanity’s capacity to be prudent). Do we punish the criminal or punish the parents? It might be proper to blame God on the argument that God gave humanity free will, and that in turn allowed for evil to be done, but that wouldn’t be a strong case for putting all the blame on God. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>Then you have to consider that Catholics believe free will is integral to God’s identity as a good and just being, which would largely outweigh any reason for blaming God.</p>

<p>My own thoughts on your last paragraph:</p>

<p>If God exists as explained by Roman Catholic doctrine, he is indeed a fairly uninvolved God in some respects. I might say that he’s the coach to humanity’s players (not the best metaphor, since we can’t physically go ask for help), but he showed us the rulebook and now we’re on the field. He can’t play for us, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s not rooting for us.</p>

<p>I have my own reasons for not being completely convinced in the existence of a god - this is just how I’d reconcile my observations under the premise that the Christian God exists.</p>

<p>Listen to this guy, he knew what’s up.</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - George Carlin - Religion is ■■■■■■■■.](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>

<p>Another very interesting take:</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin](<a href=“YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin - YouTube”>YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin - YouTube)</p>

<p>lol, kind of funny: 666 answers to the thread “do you believe there is a god?” xD</p>

<p>So a lot of people have been linking to George Carlin. I bet he’s got some legitimately insightful ideas, but his stand-up routines oversimplify religion. His primary function in these videos is that of a comedian - you cannot possibly expect to use his jokes as reasons to disbelieve religion. If you do, you’re probably not thinking this through as comprehensively as you should be.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So a person who doesn’t pray, but is otherwise a benevolent pacifist who doesn’t sin won’t go to heaven? But then doesn’t that contradict the notion that god is magnanimous?!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No one is without sin, for one. Second, God is both benevolent and just. Cause and effect.</p>

<p>Yes, I do.</p>