Subjective, as in it is existing in the mind and/or pertaining to the characteristics of an individual.
In other words, God may or may not exist. There is no proof that God exists, however, what many Atheists don't want to admit is that there is also no proof that there ISN'T a God. It cannot be proven or disproven. So, belief in God is merely subjective.
Really, me saying that it is subjective is just me saying what countless others have said before.... there is no proven fact in it, so it is just an opinion (faith).
There's no evidence for any god, there for its not logical to.belief in one, you shouldn't believe in anything without any evidence for it.
Just because man lacks the knowledge to prove the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. To say that God does not exist because we can't prove it is more an insult to men rather than God. It means men's knowledge is what it is it can't be improved and that we cannot discover new things that may in a chain of events lead to the discovery of God.
I don't believe you can ever prove God's existence with sciences such as physics and math . I have said this before, God can only be proven by logical reasoning but that again has its problems.
Logic has one very basic concept: Axioms. In every field of science you eventually will come across a statement that is not proven but is widely accepted to be true. We use THAT statement to prove other new statements. And then the new statements to prove other statements and so on. Like a point in geometry. It's a primitive notion. (From wikipedia: In mathematics, logic, and formal systems,a primitive notion is an undefined concept. In particular, a primitive notion is not defined in terms of previously defined concepts, but is only motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience.)
When it comes to discussing God's existence what IS our axiom? If I say"God exists because a world built on chaos needs order and God is it's order" you may not agree with me and ask me for a more fundamental statement. But how fundamental can my statements be and still be what you call "Reason?" You eventually have to "agree" with me on one of my statements without considering it an actual "proof" as I try to be more fundamental. Then we consider that statement our axiom and then we can prove God's existence. But what is something that all men agree on and none disagree on? Let that be our axiom. Such thing does not exist. Because there's no telling if someone has accepted a statement as a fundamental proof or not since he can always lie about it.
In short: God is unlike anything in the universe. Physics are the science of explaining the universe. So physics can't prove God's existence. Logical thinking can. But in order to prove God's existence using logic we have to agree on a fundamental proof (axiom).
I believe in science too but we must remember that science cannot explain (does not know) everything.
For example, science cannot completely explain the nature of pain and extreme suffering. Science still can't explain the nature of agony and why it's so subjective.
We also don't completely understand what 'consciousness' is too or what really causes consciousness and subjective experience. This is called the hard problem of consciousness.
Science also cannot explain the nature of life after death or life beyond death.
@Kevlar101: there's no proof there isn't anything, you can't prove a negative.
Things like easter bunny and Santa clause cannot be proven they don't exist either
Santa exists. The bunny exists...or didn't you get toys and eggs for the holidays? They might not be the image presented in stories....but they do exist. Unless of course your parents hated you. That's entirely a different matter.
And yes to answer the question. I don't believe randomness created all we know.
I don't know, it's not a question that is important for me personally. Do I believe in God? maybe... first of all what do you mean with God? are you talking about the christian god or another type of god? I don't believe in the christian god but I'm closer to believe on a more pantheist explanation of god. Either way I think wether God exists or not and whatever it is it has no bearing on how I live and what I do for the simple fact that it is most certainly beyond anyone's comprehension. We will be like ants trying to understand what Einstein was doing. And if it doesn't exist then, the same, that has no bearing on what we do here so it's, ironically, somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Was raised Lutheran but I'm agnostic now. But the fact that a global nuclear war has not happened despite people's treachery to each other over the last 50 years+ is hard for me to comprehend. I figured by now we'd be living in a post WW3 desolate earth. Makes me think a god has been intervening to hold back nations from attacking each other with nukes.
Not saying I believe in god because of that logic, I'm still agnostic I think. But although it's not scientific evidence it can be a logical reasoning worth considering. The Cuban missile crisis is a close call which serves as an example.
@EPICCOMMANDER: If you're asking if I'm familiar with the argument, yeah...if you're referring to a book, then no =)
You say you are familiar with the argument but since you say you have not thought about God you clearly have heard the argument but not understood it. Pascal's argument is a valid argument and it's impossible to argue against it.
Any sensible person following this line of logic would choose to believe in God.
@EPICCOMMANDER: That is your opinion and if that works for you, I'm happy for you. To me it's hypocrisy.
Yes, you would have to follow the commands of the God you believe in, yes you would have to obey the scriptures of whatever religion you want for your belief to 'count,' but the argument is still sound, i.e. what do you have to lose?
You can of course choose to ignore logic but is choosing to accept logic in some instances and not choosing to accept it in this instance also hypocrisy??
Look I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. The point I get from the Wager is that the existence of God should not be dismissed so readily just because God cannot be proven.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment