A Question about the existence of god.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Don't worry this won't be an endless debate about whether or not a god exists, I know from personal experience how annoying they can get. In fact for the purpose of this discussion his/ her/ its/ their existence is completely irrelevant.

The question I want to ask is different.
"Do you think the existence of god would be or is positive?"
In other words
"Is a world with god(s) (as you understand them) a better place than a world without?
For clarty it would help if you could also say what you personally mean by god.

I'll answer when I have to time to put my thoughts together but for now I'd be interested to see what you think.

Any god, if it exists, does bugger all to deal with the actual problems in the world. Prayer is a joke, a sugar pill for the mind. As such, if such a thing really existed, then the world is no better off than if it didn't.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (disputed)

avouleance2nd:
Don't worry this won't be an endless debate about whether or not a god exists, I know from personal experience how annoying they can get. In fact for the purpose of this discussion his/ her/ its/ their existence is completely irrelevant.

The question I want to ask is different.
"Do you think the existence of god would be or is positive?"
In other words
"Is a world with god(s) (as you understand them) a better place than a world without?
For clarty it would help if you could also say what you personally mean by god.

I'll answer when I have to time to put my thoughts together but for now I'd be interested to see what you think.

I believe in Jehovah the one god of the hebrew scriptures.
I think the idea of that god would be better for the world. The idea of a father figrue of all the world someone who knows what your going through who has no other motive but to see you happy. Like any father if you live in his house you gotta follow his rules so hes not going to allow you break those rules without some form of punishment. Not the burn in hell forever kind but the kind that a real father uses to correct the child understanding. You spank a kid who keeps playing with the oven not because you enjoy hurting them but because if you didnt the child would go through much more severe pain the other way.

avouleance2nd:
"Do you think the existence of god would be or is positive?"
In other words
"Is a world with god(s) (as you understand them) a better place than a world without?
For clarty it would help if you could also say what you personally mean by god.

I think that would heavily depend on the god really. If you take the Judeo-Christian god, the world would pretty much be fucked. If you take the trinity from the Hindu religions, we'd be all right until Shiva decided it was time to clean house. If you take the Greek Pantheon, I would imagine Zeus would be knocking boots with a vast number of ladies and our tabloids would be filled with baby daddy drama with demigod offspring out of the wood-work. If it would be the Norse Pantheon, I would probably get myself killed in glorious honorable combat. Then there are those Cthulu enthusiasts; probably wouldn't be a very fun world.

That really depends upon the nature of the deity. The possible effects on the universe can range from it having never been created, to an utter paradise, to not existing tomorrow because the deity got bored, to a literal hell on earth.

Even sticking within the JudeoChristian mythology the actual effect is unclear. The old testament describes an utter bastard that makes the most sadistic tyrants of our history look comparable to mother Theresa. The New testament description is significantly better in terms of god's disposition, but the difference between the two attitudes is never adequately explained.

Overall, I'm going to have to go with the stance of god's existence being bad for us, simply because not only are we incapable of assessing any threat such a being poses, the possible outcomes that are decidedly negative far far outweigh the others.

Aris Khandr:
Any god, if it exists, does bugger all to deal with the actual problems in the world. Prayer is a joke, a sugar pill for the mind. As such, if such a thing really existed, then the world is no better off than if it didn't.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (disputed)

That reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRyJmkOY3yk

The voice is in the end is that of Bernard Hill (I still think there is some video where he kinda quotes Epicurus, but I cannot find it).

Epicurus was, is and always will be, my favorite philosopher.

Aris Khandr:
Any god, if it exists, does bugger all to deal with the actual problems in the world. Prayer is a joke, a sugar pill for the mind. As such, if such a thing really existed, then the world is no better off than if it didn't.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (disputed)

Alright Epicurus, let's settle this question.

But first, I need you to define "evil." Have fun.

OT: I find this question a little weird. It's based on trying to compare existance with or without God, and in either case we end up with exactly the reality we have right now.

War. Theft. Murder. Deceit. Cancer. In short, people being hurt for no reason. If such a "loving" god exists, why am I watching my girlfriend die a little bit more every single day? That's bullshit.

Aris Khandr:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Why does that make it malevolent, why can't that make it indifferent?

Aris Khandr:
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Your assuming that there is only one divine being.

Aris Khandr:
War. Theft. Murder. Deceit. Cancer. In short, people being hurt for no reason. If such a "loving" god exists, why am I watching my girlfriend die a little bit more every single day? That's bullshit.

All of those things can be justified. Your still not defining evil.

Also, you realize that its possible for their to be a divine being that doesn't interfere with the lives of humans, right?

Aris Khandr:
War. Theft. Murder. Deceit. Cancer. In short, people being hurt for no reason. If such a "loving" god exists, why am I watching my girlfriend die a little bit more every single day? That's bullshit.

well what answer do you want? i can give you various kinds to your question.

There is no answer. And supposed "loving, all powerful" deity that allows that may as well not exist, for all the value it brings to the world.

If a god exists, I assume the universe could not exist without it, or at least would not function well.
As I understand it, gods in general have the role of keeping order in the universe or creating it. So if you remove a god from a universe, it would not be good.

However, I think the existence of gods is horribly unlikely. The universe appears to be able to keep itself in order without the help of gods.
The presence of gods would then mean an existence out there has tremendous power, without this power being neccessary for the fuctioning of the universe I don't think that's a good thing.

With the way you pose the question I'm slightly ambivalent. In regards to the Christian or Islamic version of God, I'm firmly in the category of what Hitchens called an anti-theist, in that I'm very glad that sort of a God doesn't exist. That's a God who has all the negative human characteristics of hatred and jealousy, has no plan or insight into the future, improvises on an emotional whim, punishes thought, and is without a doubt not what could be called divine. On the other hand if a deist type of God (as in a God that created the universe but took no particular interest in humanity, and maybe didn't even know we existed) was to pass by and say hello and show her presence, I'm sure that would be an interesting and generally positive experience. I'd certainly take my time to try to ask her a thing or two about physics. Who wouldn't?

tstorm823:
But first, I need you to define "evil." Have fun.

What definition would you like? We have the immoral definition, the misfortune/suffering/disastrous definition, the bad conduct definition, or should we work with the absence of gods presence definition? Each definition results in a slightly different conversation, so take your pick.

Volf:
Why does that make it malevolent, why can't that make it indifferent?

Indifference would assume that god doesn't care about us; which is clearly not what most religious positions would tout.

Volf:
Your assuming that there is only one divine being.

That is kind of how the conversation goes. I'm more than willing to accept a wide range of deities all battling it out up in the heavens for the rights to my soul, but you constantly get religious folk telling people that other religious folk are bat shit crazy. That whole "one true god" thing most of them have going for them.

There's also that tidbit in certain texts where the big cheese fully admits he's the one that is responsible for crap that happens (not that hard to find people).

Volf:
All of those things can be justified. Your still not defining evil.

In specific circumstances sure (hello extreme subjectivity), but we could still call them evil under the misfortune definition.

Just as long as we don't get into that atrocious discussion of his great and mysterious ways.

Volf:
Also, you realize that its possible for their to be a divine being that doesn't interfere with the lives of humans, right?

(Snicker) Oh come on, how often does that happen? Amirite?!

At best (Deism) he simply watches upon all the horror and tragedies of this world without a care. Shit, its no skin of his nose, but whatever, starving children in Africa and whatnot.

At worst...Hes the Judeo-Christian version, that is, the bloodiest fucking tyrant the world has ever had the misfortune of suffering from.

avouleance2nd:
"Do you think the existence of god would be or is positive?"
In other words
"Is a world with god(s) (as you understand them) a better place than a world without?

Well, I'm kind of like a demi-god, and I make existence way better for the ladies...

Sorry.

Your question depends entirely on the nature of the hypothesized deity. Without knowing which deity is under discussion, we can't speculate on if the world would be better.

Aris Khandr:
Any god, if it exists, does bugger all to deal with the actual problems in the world. Prayer is a joke, a sugar pill for the mind. As such, if such a thing really existed, then the world is no better off than if it didn't.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (disputed)

I recently thought up a problem with this, namely from reading the final book of the Eragon series[1]. At the very end *SPOILERS PEOPLE, LOOK AWAY* he leaves the land because he is too powerful, and believes that if he stays, he will throw the world out of balance. *I THINK THAT'S THE END OF THE SPOILERS*

The point was that if you have the power to stop something bad from happening, how can you stand by and let it happen, yet at the same time, how can anyone's decision be their own if they can only make it if you approve? And then, how can you be sure that you are making the right decision, that your morals are better than those of anyone else? So while Epicurus has a point, to a certain extent, if you believe in subjective morality, then even if a deity has a set of moral guidelines, a truly kind one would know that their own judgements might be flawed and that other people can have alternative morals that are also valid, and so would take their-self out of the equation so that, for better or worse, people could actually live their own lives.

I guess what I'm saying is that, even if you don't believe in some supernatural free-will schtick, you can still value the decisions of an individual as being that individual's decision (it may not have been a 'choice' in that there are options, but it is still a reflection of what makes that person 'them'), and having the power of a deity can completely screw that over.[2]

OT: I think the existence of a deity would be somewhere between bad and neutral. Either they intervene, which just screws us over, or they don't and nothing changes. It could be possible to be good, because as I was discussing with a friend, if I was a deity, I'd take the form of a human simply because having that much power is simply a hassle. I'd much rather spend some of my time as a human with a few 'insurance' powers thrown in (to keep things interesting), and help out as much as I could within the limits of any other human. This way, the deity would be a good influence, but only on a very small scale, not enough to screw with our freedom.

[1] It isn't the most original series, but I enjoy it, which is a subjective view, so any haters, please don't quote me about it, it really isn't the point of my post
[2] Keep in mind I am an atheist, I'm just saying that Epicurus is not perfect if you really look at it

Biosophilogical:
I guess what I'm saying is that, even if you don't believe in some supernatural free-will schtick, you can still value the decisions of an individual as being that individual's decision (it may not have been a 'choice' in that there are options, but it is still a reflection of what makes that person 'them'), and having the power of a deity can completely screw that over.

And I'm saying that if you buy into the idea that there is an all-powerful deity, and that said deity created the world and everything in it, then the existence of cancer proves that he is a colossal jackass. Because it was specifically created and released on mankind. If we stick to the "father figure" analogy, it's roughly the same as your father rolling a dice one afternoon, seeing the result, and taking your brother outside and shooting him because of it.

Biosophilogical:

Aris Khandr:
Any god, if it exists, does bugger all to deal with the actual problems in the world. Prayer is a joke, a sugar pill for the mind. As such, if such a thing really existed, then the world is no better off than if it didn't.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (disputed)

I recently thought up a problem with this, namely from reading the final book of the Eragon series[1]. At the very end *SPOILERS PEOPLE, LOOK AWAY* he leaves the land because he is too powerful, and believes that if he stays, he will throw the world out of balance. *I THINK THAT'S THE END OF THE SPOILERS*

The point was that if you have the power to stop something bad from happening, how can you stand by and let it happen, yet at the same time, how can anyone's decision be their own if they can only make it if you approve? And then, how can you be sure that you are making the right decision, that your morals are better than those of anyone else? So while Epicurus has a point, to a certain extent, if you believe in subjective morality, then even if a deity has a set of moral guidelines, a truly kind one would know that their own judgements might be flawed and that other people can have alternative morals that are also valid, and so would take their-self out of the equation so that, for better or worse, people could actually live their own lives.

I guess what I'm saying is that, even if you don't believe in some supernatural free-will schtick, you can still value the decisions of an individual as being that individual's decision (it may not have been a 'choice' in that there are options, but it is still a reflection of what makes that person 'them'), and having the power of a deity can completely screw that over.[2]

OT: I think the existence of a deity would be somewhere between bad and neutral. Either they intervene, which just screws us over, or they don't and nothing changes. It could be possible to be good, because as I was discussing with a friend, if I was a deity, I'd take the form of a human simply because having that much power is simply a hassle. I'd much rather spend some of my time as a human with a few 'insurance' powers thrown in (to keep things interesting), and help out as much as I could within the limits of any other human. This way, the deity would be a good influence, but only on a very small scale, not enough to screw with our freedom.

It follows, then, that if God is the omnipotent, omniscient, and personal(i.e has a personality) creater of existence, then it has set up both morality and free will and allows them to conflict. Yet this seems improbable as having conflicting elements in a system seems like poor design, especially for a designer with the above listed atributes. Perhaps then, assuming the description of God is accurate, morality and free will aren't contradictory. Perhaps there exists a hierarchy of morality, and hindering free will is the most immoral act possible. If that's the case, then God is morally justified in allowing free will (or, if morality exists apart from God, then God is morally obligated to allow free will). Of course, it would then follow that God is immoral in not making us eternal and omnipotent, so I guess that doesn't work.

Off Topic: Have you ever read Manfred?

On Topic: Whether or not God's existence would be a good thing depends on the God. As for my opinion, I don't really feel comfortable speaking on the nature of God as I find it difficult (or impossible) to answer definitively, even more so than the existence of God (of which I'm also not certain).

[1] It isn't the most original series, but I enjoy it, which is a subjective view, so any haters, please don't quote me about it, it really isn't the point of my post
[2] Keep in mind I am an atheist, I'm just saying that Epicurus is not perfect if you really look at it

Jonluw:
If a god exists, I assume the universe could not exist without it, or at least would not function well.

That's a very good point and judging from what we've seen of the universe, if there is such a being then she(I don't know what to call a genderless being) lets the universe run itself.

Would seem to be the smartest thing not have to micro manage every thing.

Endersgate1321:
I believe in Jehovah the one god of the hebrew scriptures.
I think the idea of that god would be better for the world....

The god of Abraham is legendary for wiping out the entire human race save his chosen elite, and for sending his preferred tribe to slaughter other tribes down to the child and the livestock. He also nuked two cities for being too paranoid of strangers (they were recently war-torn, hence had just cause to be suspicious), yet spared the guy who offered his daughters up for rapine.[1]

Known as the Demiurge to some, the Abrahamic deity is no benevolent overseer, to the contrary, I find it fortunate that he's so improbable.

The idea of a father [figure] of all the world someone who knows what your going through who has no other motive but to see you happy.

To me, this phrase seems contradictory to the following:

Like any father if you live in his house you gotta follow his rules so hes not going to allow you break those rules without some form of punishment. Not the burn in hell forever kind but the kind that a real father uses to correct the child understanding. You spank a kid who keeps playing with the oven not because you enjoy hurting them but because if you didn't the child would go through much more severe pain the other way.

My understanding of negative reinforcement requires the enforcing stimulus (in this case, the spanking) to be consistently and immediately applied in response to the behavior, and even then if there are ulterior motivations, the behavior may still continue. Given that, again, God is a poor overseer when it comes to social rules or biblical rules (such as a proscription against stealing). On the other hand God is an excellent overseer when it comes to physical laws. She never lets anyone get away with violating anything.

Regarding the original topic, As Richard Dawkins has noted, our universe looks exactly as if it is unaffected by anything supernatural, as if it functioned perfectly based on a set of consistent, unfeeling and starkly cold laws.

Marik2:
That's a very good point and judging from what we've seen of the universe, if there is such a being then she(I don't know what to call a genderless being) lets the universe run itself.

Would seem to be the smartest thing not have to micro manage every thing.

Actually we have rather intricate simulations of universes micromanaged all the time. Computers don't find at all tedious those things that we do, and it would be odd to presume that God would feel tedium. Omniscience and omnipotence could very easily include infinite memory, infinite attention span and infinite patience.

On the other hand, God, most likely, is the universe, and has the properties of the universe, as opposed to the properties we like to assign to God, such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence (what a parent is to a newborn). But with the properties of the universe, which seems to not include sentience, there is no need to call it God, just our universe.

Alternatively, the universe is in its entirety, a simulation in which case it'd be a debate as to whether the computer is God, or the programmer, assuming they're independent. Given the total absence of side-channel indications for common spiritual concepts such as souls, life-force, miracles, divine surveillance, afterlife and so on, this is the most likely means by which these things could be true.[2]

[1] These days, due to what's probably a misinterpretation (intentional in recent eras) people like to think Sodom and Gomorrah were scorched for buggery or wild sex parties, but that would be like saying a convicted mass-murderer was hanged for spitting at the judge.
[2] At least without some disastrous implications, such as that human souls are so ephemeral and fragile that the electromagnetic field of an iPhone could wipe one out (and that solar flares regularly purge any souls not protected by the Earth's crust.

Knowing the bloody and brutal track record to the biblical god, we are way better off without him.
An all powerful being who is proud, jealous, vindictive, petty, self absorbed and commits mass murder on a whim... That is a scary thought.

Aris Khandr:

And I'm saying that if you buy into the idea that there is an all-powerful deity, and that said deity created the world and everything in it, then the existence of cancer proves that he is a colossal jackass. Because it was specifically created and released on mankind. If we stick to the "father figure" analogy, it's roughly the same as your father rolling a dice one afternoon, seeing the result, and taking your brother outside and shooting him because of it.

But what happens after he's shot?

Aris Khandr:
Any god, if it exists, does bugger all to deal with the actual problems in the world. Prayer is a joke, a sugar pill for the mind. As such, if such a thing really existed, then the world is no better off than if it didn't.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (disputed)

Ugh, this is the one of the laziest argument I've seen for the nonexistence of God and I've seen many.

Where does evil come from? Humanity. What can you do to stop evil? Alter Humanity. And in so doing, Free Will is slain. The idea that God being unwilling to take the steps needed to end Evil is proof that he is malevolent is absurd, there are a laundry list of other reasons, including that the possibility for Evil is necessary for there to truly be Good. If you deny Humanity the ability to choose to do wrong, then it becomes meaningless when we do right because we literally have no alternative.

Aris Khandr:
Any god, if it exists, does bugger all to deal with the actual problems in the world. Prayer is a joke, a sugar pill for the mind. As such, if such a thing really existed, then the world is no better off than if it didn't.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (disputed)

It wasn't Epicurus. It was Hume. Hume frames this bit of his writing by opening with "What of Epicurus old questions? ...."(paraphrased). Epicurus questioned whether the gods(he was a polytheist) had any interest or influence in the lives of men. He saw only indifference. The general religious beliefs of his time did not typically include benevolent gods. It was actually telling men not to fear the gods that Epicurus' theology was most concerned with.

Lets see....

Oh, I know!
Aphrodite!

Bow-chicka-wow-wow!

avouleance2nd:
"Do you think the existence of god would be or is positive?"

Aha, good question.

My answer is no, not only do I think the existence of god is very unlikely, I also don't think it would be desirable for gods to exist.

I don't like the idea of a celestial authority monitoring me. I'd have to question the sanity and benevolence of a God who created diseases, viruses, parasites and natural disasters. And I'd be fairly sick in the knowledge that at least some of his insufferable fanboys turned out to be right.

Which prety much makes me an antitheist.

Depends on the god.

Most traditional ideas of the Christian god? No. Ok, he'd be necessary for creation, but it's better to not exist than to live under the sway of a being who not only creates his own subjects but creates them knowing that 90% of them are going end up living massive amounts of suffering and probably end up in hell anyway because they didn't ego-wank him enough.

I have to say, the only ideas of a god I've come across that I'd say are positive are the ones who only create. Deism, and I guess to an extent pantheism and and panentheism, though I personally think they're just atheism by another name....

Any omipotent god is an asshole by lack of action. That's what kicked me off of Christianity before.

It honestly depends on what kind of god you're talking about, and since there are so many gods and so many different interpretations of them, I can't give you an answer. I'm an Atheist, so I don't believe in God nor do I have any personal meaning for one.

IMO, pretty much all gods in every religion are dicks in my opinion, if they're totally indifferent to the suffering they're causing in the world they've created.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Aris Khandr:
Any god, if it exists, does bugger all to deal with the actual problems in the world. Prayer is a joke, a sugar pill for the mind. As such, if such a thing really existed, then the world is no better off than if it didn't.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus (disputed)

Ugh, this is the one of the laziest argument I've seen for the nonexistence of God and I've seen many.

Where does evil come from? Humanity. What can you do to stop evil? Alter Humanity. And in so doing, Free Will is slain. The idea that God being unwilling to take the steps needed to end Evil is proof that he is malevolent is absurd, there are a laundry list of other reasons, including that the possibility for Evil is necessary for there to truly be Good. If you deny Humanity the ability to choose to do wrong, then it becomes meaningless when we do right because we literally have no alternative.

Except it's not a lazy argument, because if there is at least one god and he/she/it created us, why would he set up us to destroy ourselves like that? If he's omnipotent, knows the future and all that shit? Why should anyone believe in or trust in a god that lets this widespread suffering and self-destruction happen, due to complete indifference or as part of some unspecified "test"?

But indifference, test, omnipotence and all of that stuff are entirely human inventions and traits anyway, so I guess the argument is moot anyway. Because, well, God isn't real, and we made him up. Also, funny how God had to be a "him" in the Judeo-Christian faiths. Not a "she" or an "it". Because man is all-powerful, right? No? We're living in 2012 and that kind of man-loving, woman-hating fuckery should've died with the Dark Ages? I thought so.

But I don't think evil exists anyway. I don't think morality exists; it's only what we as a society have imposed. I don't think anything exists. I think everything's random.

avouleance2nd:
Don't worry this won't be an endless debate about whether or not a god exists, I know from personal experience how annoying they can get. In fact for the purpose of this discussion his/ her/ its/ their existence is completely irrelevant.

The question I want to ask is different.
"Do you think the existence of god would be or is positive?"
In other words
"Is a world with god(s) (as you understand them) a better place than a world without?
For clarty it would help if you could also say what you personally mean by god.

I'll answer when I have to time to put my thoughts together but for now I'd be interested to see what you think.

I assume you mean religion. Religion helps to regulate our conduct and behaviour in society by providing a set of morals and value system for human existence. At a personal level religion fulfils the role of accounting for a lack of knowledge and offering hope in the face of difficulties. It also offers a sense of belonging.

We don't need religion to have morality, or have trust, or have hope. It's an entirely human invention. That's kind of evident by the fact that many people in the world are Atheists/Agnostics and didn't necessarily have religious upbringings.

KlLLUMINATI:

avouleance2nd:
Don't worry this won't be an endless debate about whether or not a god exists, I know from personal experience how annoying they can get. In fact for the purpose of this discussion his/ her/ its/ their existence is completely irrelevant.

The question I want to ask is different.
"Do you think the existence of god would be or is positive?"
In other words
"Is a world with god(s) (as you understand them) a better place than a world without?
For clarty it would help if you could also say what you personally mean by god.

I'll answer when I have to time to put my thoughts together but for now I'd be interested to see what you think.

I assume you mean religion. Religion helps to regulate our conduct and behaviour in society by providing a set of morals and value system for human existence. At a personal level religion fulfils the role of accounting for a lack of knowledge and offering hope in the face of difficulties. It also offers a sense of belonging.

No I meant to asked the question I asked. Do you think a world where god exists is preferable to one where they don't.

avouleance2nd:

KlLLUMINATI:

avouleance2nd:
Don't worry this won't be an endless debate about whether or not a god exists, I know from personal experience how annoying they can get. In fact for the purpose of this discussion his/ her/ its/ their existence is completely irrelevant.

The question I want to ask is different.
"Do you think the existence of god would be or is positive?"
In other words
"Is a world with god(s) (as you understand them) a better place than a world without?
For clarty it would help if you could also say what you personally mean by god.

I'll answer when I have to time to put my thoughts together but for now I'd be interested to see what you think.

I assume you mean religion. Religion helps to regulate our conduct and behaviour in society by providing a set of morals and value system for human existence. At a personal level religion fulfils the role of accounting for a lack of knowledge and offering hope in the face of difficulties. It also offers a sense of belonging.

No I meant to asked the question I asked. Do you think a world where god exists is preferable to one where they don't.

I do not know I have never lived in a world where God does not exist.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked