• The moderator of this forum is Martin.
  • Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.

Serious Does some sort of God exist? And why?

In my personal opinion, there must be a God up there. I don't know if it's Jesus, Allah, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever, but take a look around you: I just can't believe all of this exists without the help of a superior being. What do you think?
 
We don't know if there is a God. There might be, but we can't know. There might not be, but we can't know. Until there is undeniable evidence, we can't ever confirm or deny the existence of some form of deity.

However, the more that science develops, the less likely it seems that their is a higher deity - increasingly providing evidence and theories for the previously unknowable.
 

Ortheore

Tournament Banned
It's ironic that the flying spaghetti monster is mentioned in the OP, since it's deliberately designed to demonstrate that the god hypothesis is basically untestable and therefore not a real hypothesis. It's not really possible to prove there isn't a god afaik, however you can construct some damn strong arguments why there probably isn't.

Personally I see no reason to believe in a god, simply because I don't know of any decent evidence supporting the idea. The idea that reality couldn't exist without some god is simply not founded in reason and actually strikes me as lazy thinking tbh. Like there are people out there right now trying to work out these sorts of metaphysical questions by observing the world around them, it's not as though we can't attempt to find answers this way and we should because then we'd have a better reason for our beliefs than "idk, I just assumed".

Another thing is that I legit don't understand why you can rationally claim one religion is more valid than the other. To me they're all on equally shaky grounds so it's not just that they have to argue god(s) exist but also why their religion should be considered more accurate than the next. Christianity vs islam is a good example, since they're both based on a holy text about some dude who was supposedly divine and did a bunch of divine-type stuff, so why believe one over the other? It should be painfully obvious that I've read neither of those texts, but hey that doesn't stop a shitload of other people from making that decision so... *shrug*
 
It's ironic that the flying spaghetti monster is mentioned in the OP, since it's deliberately designed to demonstrate that the god hypothesis is basically untestable and therefore not a real hypothesis. It's not really possible to prove there isn't a god afaik, however you can construct some damn strong arguments why there probably isn't.

Personally I see no reason to believe in a god, simply because I don't know of any decent evidence supporting the idea. The idea that reality couldn't exist without some god is simply not founded in reason and actually strikes me as lazy thinking tbh. Like there are people out there right now trying to work out these sorts of metaphysical questions by observing the world around them, it's not as though we can't attempt to find answers this way and we should because then we'd have a better reason for our beliefs than "idk, I just assumed".

Another thing is that I legit don't understand why you can rationally claim one religion is more valid than the other. To me they're all on equally shaky grounds so it's not just that they have to argue god(s) exist but also why their religion should be considered more accurate than the next. Christianity vs islam is a good example, since they're both based on a holy text about some dude who was supposedly divine and did a bunch of divine-type stuff, so why believe one over the other? It should be painfully obvious that I've read neither of those texts, but hey that doesn't stop a shitload of other people from making that decision so... *shrug*
I see what you mean. I think that religion and science can coexist, in some way. I would like to express myself more, but English is not my first language and I don't really know how to say what I want to say lol fml. Thank you for expressing your opinion politely though.
 

Adamant Zoroark

catchy catchphrase
is a Contributor to Smogon
Until I see conclusive evidence of the Loch Ness Monster existing, I won't believe it exists. Likewise, until I see conclusive evidence of a god existing, I won't believe one exists. It's pretty simple, really, and none of this even has to get into my personal gripes with the very idea of religion (which the thread didn't ask about anyway)

However, I will say that if there is a god, it's definitely not one from any of the major religions. Simple: Why would a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god have allowed the Holocaust to happen? If a god exists, it'd be more like a deistic god (i.e. leaves everyone the fuck alone) really.
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
Let me ask this how do you separate religion and science as distinct entities? They both operate heavily upon faith. To think there is a sky daddy that watches all is ridiculous and takes a large amount of faith.


What also takes a huge leap of faith is to assume that the universe was once nothing at all and suddenly BOOM wow now its a universe from absolutely nothing. BANG oh look we got some planets, some solar systems, aw look that one has water, this one over here just happens to be perfectly placed for intelligent life to evolve; how lucky are we?!

When you begin to truly understand what many scientific theories suppose and instead of taking it at face value-you analyze it, you start to see some very strong similarities between science and religion. They are in the end one in the same; a simple belief system that operates upon faith and are there to instill moral and intellectual fortitude. I dont really understand why there is a struggle for a dominant train of thought when they both are not only flawed but ultimately up to the individual to decide which works better for themselves.
 
Until I see conclusive evidence of the Loch Ness Monster existing, I won't believe it exists. Likewise, until I see conclusive evidence of a god existing, I won't believe one exists. It's pretty simple, really,

Yeah but you can't really compare the idea of "God" to something fantastic like Lock Ness Monster, werewolves, dragons or whatever you have, because certain routes of thought simply take you to God (think for example of Tommaso D'Aquino "Five Ways"). Of course there are lots of atheist philosophers out there...I’d even go as far as to say most philosophers nowadays are atheist. But my point is, certain lines of rational thought (what a pleonasm but I wanted to emphatize here) can still bring you to ‘God’ , while there’s no way you can rationally justify the existence of Hogwarts. “God” stands for “prime principle”, after all, it is not some kind of monster neither a “Father” such as some religions believe, so it’s completely up to you to accept or not its idea, depending on which reasonings you find true the most
 
I think there is something "out there" that science can't yet describe or measure, like some other parallel or astral unidentified world that we aren't able to find with what we currently have. So, something massive and indescribable that can be described as a "God" is out there that has some form of control on our realm. Who knows, I can't really know for sure.
 
I think there is something "out there" that science can't yet describe or measure, like some other parallel or astral unidentified world that we aren't able to find with what we currently have. So, something massive and indescribable that can be described as a "God" is out there that has some form of control on our realm. Who knows, I can't really know for sure.
Yaaas, I like this theory :)
 

Ortheore

Tournament Banned
Let me ask this how do you separate religion and science as distinct entities? They both operate heavily upon faith. To think there is a sky daddy that watches all is ridiculous and takes a large amount of faith.


What also takes a huge leap of faith is to assume that the universe was once nothing at all and suddenly BOOM wow now its a universe from absolutely nothing. BANG oh look we got some planets, some solar systems, aw look that one has water, this one over here just happens to be perfectly placed for intelligent life to evolve; how lucky are we?!

When you begin to truly understand what many scientific theories suppose and instead of taking it at face value-you analyze it, you start to see some very strong similarities between science and religion. They are in the end one in the same; a simple belief system that operates upon faith and are there to instill moral and intellectual fortitude. I dont really understand why there is a struggle for a dominant train of thought when they both are not only flawed but ultimately up to the individual to decide which works better for themselves.
How does science operate on faith? The whole point of science is that it's either grounded in evidence or it makes predictions that can readily be tested. Sure, you can argue that a scientific study in isolation could potentially be created using fabricated evidence or something similar, but these things don't exist in isolation- even if that experiment is not replicated to ensure its accuracy, future studies will build upon it and if something doesn't add up then prior studies will be examined and inaccuracies discovered. Science doesn't depend on faith because the system ensures that every claim is held accountable. Sure, the system is not perfect (for instance, psychology is a mess in terms of replicability), but it's overall pretty damn good. And frankly, we don't need faith to determine the accuracy of scientific knowledge because a lot of it gets used to make products that form part of our lives, products that actually work.

Science and religion cannot be equated because of how they treat knowledge. Religion doesn't search for answers, instead claiming it's already found them. Furthermore, faith shields certain beliefs from critical thinking. Science doesn't claim to offer all of the answers and actively seeks to further understanding of the world through observation and evidence, while sparing nothing from critical thinking.

The example you give regarding the creation of the solar system/earth/life honestly doesn't suggest any understanding of how that actually occurred. If you find it so dubious, perhaps you can deconstruct the mechanisms thought to be underlying those processes and explain why they're so suspect?
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
How does science operate on faith? The whole point of science is that it's either grounded in evidence or it makes predictions that can readily be tested. Sure, you can argue that a scientific study in isolation could potentially be created using fabricated evidence or something similar, but these things don't exist in isolation- even if that experiment is not replicated to ensure its accuracy, future studies will build upon it and if something doesn't add up then prior studies will be examined and inaccuracies discovered. Science doesn't depend on faith because the system ensures that every claim is held accountable. Sure, the system is not perfect (for instance, psychology is a mess in terms of replicability), but it's overall pretty damn good. And frankly, we don't need faith to determine the accuracy of scientific knowledge because a lot of it gets used to make products that form part of our lives, products that actually work.

Science and religion cannot be equated because of how they treat knowledge. Religion doesn't search for answers, instead claiming it's already found them. Furthermore, faith shields certain beliefs from critical thinking. Science doesn't claim to offer all of the answers and actively seeks to further understanding of the world through observation and evidence, while sparing nothing from critical thinking.

The example you give regarding the creation of the solar system/earth/life honestly doesn't suggest any understanding of how that actually occurred. If you find it so dubious, perhaps you can deconstruct the mechanisms thought to be underlying those processes and explain why they're so suspect?

I understand enough to know that what we consider the laws of physics to be literally out the window at the point of singularity. The premise that the universe as it is-obeyed common laws of physics before it was as we know it today is flat out bunk and also completely assuming to boot.

I see your points and they are good but your bias is showing. Science does indeed operate on faith until it is proven, that's why scientific theory is regarded as scripture to the disciple of science; regardless if it is just hypothesis or not. In science's attempt to denounce God, there may be an agenda. I'm no expert and I have more questions than answers but people have a right to make up their own mind. If someone chooses to take up beliefs that do not align with the beliefs of others it is perfectly okay. You don't have to agree just try to see where I'm coming from, that is all I ask.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
if there is no God, then who am I robbing?

gg bitches

now for some "beautiful" proofs of God:


one time a woman sent me a picture of her vag (and the rest of her naked body) so that I could verify that her labia looked normal (all of her looked awesome), this happened on a particularly sad day for me. true story

""-similar incidents ensue


next

consider this thought experiment:

consider that God is: that being than which no greater being can be conceived.

Now, the Fool (read: alienated nerd) sayeth in their heart: "There is no God?"



??

(u need lots of question marks to prove God)


but even as they utter such, they do not understand what they say

because

God, the being than which no greater can be conceived

the being of which I speak

this being, the fool understands this being when he hears me speak of it

but

he does not understand it to exist

Yet

it is one thing for an object to exist in the understanding, and another thing to understand that the object exists

!

For example:


When a painter first conceives of what she will afterwards perform, she has it in her understanding, but she does not yet understand it to be, because she has not yet performed it. But after she has made the painting, she both has it in her understanding, and she understands that it exists, because she has made it.

thus


even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding.or at least they can be enticed to assent that they understand that being which than no greater can be conceived (God), for when the fool hears of this, they understand it.

Now

whatever is understood exists in the understanding

and assuredly then, that being than which no greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone

because suppose that this being exists in the understanding

then

it can be conceived to exist in reality

which is greater


therefore

only a fool would sayeth in their heart "there is no God?"


bbl with more proofs
 
What also takes a huge leap of faith is to assume that the universe was once nothing at all and suddenly BOOM wow now its a universe from absolutely nothing. BANG oh look we got some planets, some solar systems, aw look that one has water, this one over here just happens to be perfectly placed for intelligent life to evolve; how lucky are we?!
There's evidence for these - a hell of a lot more than religion. Yes it's a theory but its not like people are pulling crap from nowhere. The 2nd half of this makes this look even worse because there's lots of evidence for "oh look we got some planets, some solar systems, aw look that one has water, this one over here just happens to be perfectly placed for intelligent life to evolve; how lucky are we?!". You really can't say that religion, which is largely evidence-less and science are really the same.

also is it just me or is it literally impossible to read any of Myzozoa's posts
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
There's evidence for these -

You are correct that evidence exists, but the consensus is still out. Am I the only one on this whole forum who keeps up with current science? The big bang is an impossibility and the maths demonstrating this exist today. Am not worried how my post look, people judge and I'm okay with that. To say that all the places and people that have been proven to exist contained in religious text equates to the absence of evidence is laughable. I am very much convinced you are being purposefully obtuse.
 
I never denied that there is no evidence for religion but that there is less evidence for it than science
 
Last edited:
I do hope this wont be regarded as a silly post compared to all what's been already said, but i think it takes more than "you cant prove it so its not real" to say God doesn't exist. first of all the proof may very well exist but is unreachable/unfound by us , yet at least. going at it from the view "i can't see it so it's not true" is a very limited way of thinking, in my opinion, that simply shows how the human can't accept anything he can't relate to or project himself in to familiarise with. you don't have to have any form of contact with something for it to exist. heck some mythical creature may be existing and on the loose, just very very good at hiding that we haven't found it.

and well.. i kinda just wanna add, and this is the some would say "siritual" part, but honestly i personally believe faith itself is a proof that God exist. Faith shouldn't be regarded as a useless hope of God, nor as a pathetic way to convince oneself to believe, but rather a strong bond and connection to whats above us, which may be our only rope and lead to reaching that beyond. to me, i see everyday proof that God exists when someone barely escapes a car crash out of nowhere, or when i see these little daily miracles that just force you to smile. love itself is proof that God exists to me, and i truly hope i dont sound preach-y/silly because that is not my goal. Thank you
 

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
I think there is something "out there" that science can't yet describe or measure, like some other parallel or astral unidentified world that we aren't able to find with what we currently have. So, something massive and indescribable that can be described as a "God" is out there that has some form of control on our realm. Who knows, I can't really know for sure.
This sounds sensible and all, but upon closer thought I don't think it holds water. For something to be impossible to measure, it would need by definition not to have an impact on our universe. If it influences, it has an impact, and impacts can be measured. If there is a god/spiritual dimension/whatnot that subtly directs our universe, it would leave evidence all over the place in the form of violations of causality. And if said god/spirits/whatnot had directed our universe to the degree that certain people claim (such as physically moving objects so that "the right person" can find them at "the right time", or more straightforwardly, healing injuries), somebody would have gathered some pretty solid and tangible evidence for it long ago.

EDIT: Didn't see the word "yet" there. So fair enough, I guess.
 
I understand enough to know that what we consider the laws of physics to be literally out the window at the point of singularity. The premise that the universe as it is-obeyed common laws of physics before it was as we know it today is flat out bunk and also completely assuming to boot.

I see your points and they are good but your bias is showing. Science does indeed operate on faith until it is proven, that's why scientific theory is regarded as scripture to the disciple of science; regardless if it is just hypothesis or not. In science's attempt to denounce God, there may be an agenda. I'm no expert and I have more questions than answers but people have a right to make up their own mind. If someone chooses to take up beliefs that do not align with the beliefs of others it is perfectly okay. You don't have to agree just try to see where I'm coming from, that is all I ask.
Science does not operate on faith until it is proven, because it is never proven. It operates on the most comprehensive interpretation of the best evidence available until a more comprehensive interpretation is put forth or better evidence arises, at which point any useful knowledge gained from the previous interpretation must be accounted for by any new one. The assumption that the a priori acknowledgement that every scientific theory is almost certainly flawed in some way does not diminish the utility of the knowledge gained from it is foundational to science and distinguishes it from religion.

As for "science's attempt to denounce God", no such thing exists. Science lacks the capacity to disprove the existence of a prime mover, and always will, as the argument that the prime mover exits and operates outside the realm of the scientifically observable will always be as valid as it is now, regardless of how vast that realm becomes. What science does have the capacity to disprove are religious claims which contradict what has been scientifically demonstrated to be true, and the only agenda required to do so is that of progress.

In regards to the thread's topic, unless you subscribe to a specific religion, it really doesn't matter whether or not god exists. Unless you believe in a god and presume to know that god's mind, there is no reason to think god's existence or lack thereof has any bearing on your life outside of that which you allow it. To those who think/believe/suspect/etc. god exists because "Our universe is too complex not to have a creator", I say "Our universe's hypothetical creator is too complex not to have a creator" and so on, and so forth to infinity. Existence in and of itself makes no sense, be it that of the universe or a prime mover.
 

TMan87

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
Well of course there's a God, it can take every one of the 18 types and its signature move is called Judgment, duh.

In all seriousness though, oh boy is that a minefield of a theme.
As a scientist, I have yet to see conclusive evidence of the existence of a deity of some sort that reigns over our universe. On that note, I don't like some religious people's attitude of "I don't have to prove my point, you have to prove it's not valid.". That's not how it works, buddy.
However, I can't deny that there are some phenomena that science cannot comprehend yet (maybe in the future technology will advance and stuff), opening the possibility for such a being to exist and influence our realm.
In conclusion, for now I don't think a God or Goddess exists, but if I'm wrong and the day I die I'm brought to some sort of soul trial with a person telling me "Hey, I'm a deity, are you convinced now?", then I'll apologize for being doubtful. Probably say "thanks for dying for my sins" too or something.
Until now, I'd rather think I have free will over my actions. This fact makes them way more impactful.
 
One question I want to ask lol, I am a psychicist but I still cannot help but wonder, why are humans so arrogant? Aren't there things that humans just cannot understand or comprehend? If so, can't there being an omnipotent being be one of them? Isn't the bottom line that we either assume that there is a God or not, you literally cannot say any one side can be more sure than the other? Or is that not the case? One thing alot of people here going on about science not operating on faith, ask yourself, is Gravity certain lol? No it isn't, we are just told that at school but there are many examples that one can give that show Gravity doesnt make sense and cannot be proven.

Oh and for anyone who has the thought "If God exists then why is there suffering, imbalance etc.?" That in itself is arrogance, if God is the supreme creator then he does whatever he wants surely? How can you as a human try to understand why he allows things to happen if you are limited but he is not?
 
One question I want to ask lol, I am a psychicist but I still cannot help but wonder, why are humans so arrogant? Aren't there things that humans just cannot understand or comprehend? If so, can't there being an omnipotent being be one of them? Isn't the bottom line that we either assume that there is a God or not, you literally cannot say any one side can be more sure than the other? Or is that not the case? One thing alot of people here going on about science not operating on faith, ask yourself, is Gravity certain lol? No it isn't, we are just told that at school but there are many examples that one can give that show Gravity doesnt make sense and cannot be proven.

Oh and for anyone who has the thought "If God exists then why is there suffering, imbalance etc.?" That in itself is arrogance, if God is the supreme creator then he does whatever he wants surely? How can you as a human try to understand why he allows things to happen if you are limited but he is not?
I totally agree. Also, we do have a concept of what is good and what is bad, but who says that for him it's the same?
 
Personally, I don't believe in a God. There are two reasons for this. The first is because is because there's not enough evidence to suggest that there is a God, particularly not one similar to the Christian God, with a close connection to humanity. Secondly, because there's simply too much suffering in the world for me to believe that there is a kind and loving God. Many bad deeds go unpunished, many good deeds go unthanked.

If there is a God, it's one who is totally separate from humanity, because we don't see any human moral values happening in nature. It would much more likely be similar to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, but the only qualities it would posses would be that it created the universe, and then serves as a continual cause of motion. The only issue is that at this point, God doesn't even need to be a being at all. The creator of the universe, and the sustainer of the universe, are both conditions that could be satisfied by laws of physics which we are not yet aware of. In my opinion, God is either not real at all, or the definition of "God" is made so loose that the question "Is there a God?" loses its initial meaning.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top