Thursday, 5/27 - Hybrid day #2
(The purpose of this journal entry is NOT to promote any school of thought or to make you feel uncomfortable. If you are concerned about the content of this journal entry either journal about that or speak to me. Thanks.)
Choose the statement which best applies for yourself:
* As a believer, I argue that God exists using the following type of arguments....
* As an atheist, I argue that God doesn’t exist using the following type of arguments...
* As an agnostic, I argue that God could exist, but that we don’t have conclusive evidence using the following type of arguments...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
As a believer, I argue that God exists using the following type of argument Kierkegaard made. In my opinion, believing in anything is taking a leap of faith. I don't believe that there is hard core evidence proving to me that God exists, but at an early age I took my leap of faith and saw certain events as a sign from God. It does not matter to me if in the end there is not a God, because purely believing in him has helped me in my personal life. There can be no rational thinking, because those philosophers have no answered questions. It constantly goes in a circle. So as a believer, one should stop asking and just believe.
As a believer, I argue that God exists using the following type of argument that Kierkegaard made. I believe in God not because of proof that he exists but rather because I took that personal "leap of faith" that Kierkegaard uses in his argument. I think that there is no way that one could fully prove that God does in fact exist because all of the more logical arguments go in a circular motion and never seem to find an end. I think that the proof of God lies in your own personal mind and that is why that "leap of faith" should be taken in order to truly find that God exists.
As a believer, I argue that god exists using the following type of argument of the argument from design. I believe that everything must have been created from something and that something is god. There is no way to prove that god exists, we must just take a "leap of faith" and believe that god exists. I also believe that one should choose for themselves if they believe god exists and not to just follow the group. In the long run even if god doesn't exist it has given me good moral principles in which to live my life.
As a believer, I argue that God exists using the following type of arguments: I think that the arguments of logic from Pascal are important because they allow people to make a transition from disbelief to belief. I like the logical arguments because they provide some reasoning for belief. However, I don't think the other logical arguments work very well because there are so many arguments against them. Pascal's makes sense to me because it weighs the options and says since God existing is a likely probability then one should act on and believe that assumption. Weighing the alternatives helps me to decide about religion and faith.
As a believer in god, i would agree with the argument Kierkegaard made, in that belief isn't something you can explain with logic, or convince people to have, because if you do that then they don't really have faith. At this point i am not completely sure what my specific beliefs are because i was raised Catholic and believe some of the teachings but i have doubts just like anyone else. Thats why i think that a person can't argue that you should believe because of the potential consequences or punishments, you just have to make the choice that you are going to believe in God or not. You have to take that leap of faith to believe something that you can't conclusively prove or disprove. I think that the question whether god exists is a valid question, but i don't think that it needs to be answered. There will always be people on both sides who agree and disagree.
As a believer and a Christian, I argue that God exists using Kierkegaard's argument mostly, yet I find some logical arguments helpful as well. Although the logical arguments are helpful they are not the deal breaker for me. I don't see a way that the Christian God can be proven scientifically nor do I think the Christian God wanted to be proven. If God was proven in the same way that gravity is proven then it would completely take the faith out of the matter. It would cease to become faith and start to become fact. Well, it doesn't take much of a choice to believe in a fact. Therefore our choice to believe in God, which I believe is supposed to be a tough choice because it is a large commitment, would be no more.
This is why I don't buy into the logical arguments as much because I see them going nowhere. God can neither be proven or unproven scientifically. However, there are some logical, philosophical arguments that I really like. After reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, my faith was much stronger. This is not to say that the book made me believe, but it is undoubtedly comforting to hear strong arguments in favor of your view.
As an agnostic, I argue that God could exist, but that we don't have conclusive evidence using the following type of arguments dealing with Kirkegaard's "leap of faith" deal that says that it would be impossible to logically prove God's existence so the only way to truly believe is to feel God's presence within you. This makes the most sense to me because logically proving religion is inaccurate because the cosmological and ontological reason is backwards due to the fact that traits don't prove existence, it's the other way around. I also don't think the rational choice theory effectively determines how somebody believes about religion, but its used as more of a scare tactic so by admitting God exists you don't go to hell even though you may not even feel God's presence. The anti arguments for this such as Kant and Darwin aren't persuasive to me either because they create illogical reasons for him not existing such as no proof even though the Bible could be considered proof and that no one has talked to God because logically, they can't prove those things didn't happen so its a self fulfilling prophecy.
As an agnostic, I argue that God could exist, but that we don't have conclusive evidence using the argument that the only way to really know whether or not God exists is to die. And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't plan on dying any time in the near future. This means that when it finally does happen, only then will I be able to find out for sure. Until that time, I'm just going to live my life with as much virtue and integrity as I can. I like to think that if there is a God in heaven, then I will be judged on how good of a person I am and what kind of life I have led, as opposed to whether I believed in a certain book or not. I always wonder why people rarely have a different religion than their parents do. I can't stand the argument that we should just believe what we were brought up to believe just in case it's actually correct. First of all, that is no reason to believe in something. Second of all, it makes so much more sense to me that one should choose his or her own religion, and believe in what makes the most sense to them.
As a believer, I argue that God exists because of all the proof. Look around you, you see a world full of life and mystery that man has only begun to understand. Obviously two atoms banging together couldn't have made such a beautiful world. When you think about how complex life is i believe that there has to be a God out there, watching us and hel dertminist ping us through life. Im a little bit on the side when it comes to God, because i think he has a plan for me. And while i have free will along the way, ultimately i'm a part of something greater.
As a believer, I argue that God exists using the cosmological argument and argument by design. First the cosmological argument states that because nothing can create itself, there must have been some first cause. We know that everything that has begun to exist has a cause, and we know that the universe exists so therefore, there must have been something to cause the universe, something that has extraordinary powers. I believe that god was the first cause, because his divinity seems like a perfect cause for the universe. Another argument for belief in god is argument from design. The world is so intricate, and everything has such clear cut purposes, that it is hard to picture this happening naturally. The advanced ecosystems of this world seem to point in the direction of a being with the powers to create. It is inconceivable that something this perfect just happened naturally, I believe that god had a little something to do with it.
As a believer, I argue that God exists using logical reasoning and leaps of faith where the path of logic ends to come to a conclusive thought. As far as logic is concerned, I believe that when I look around me and simply see how everything works, that there cannot possibly be some cosmic coincidence that brought it all into being. I believe that there must be something which has put all things in order and allowed them to be, a “first” cause if you will. It makes logical sense to me that we and all that is around us was made with intention and thought, as even the laws of statistics side with that argument. For all of THIS to be achieved without intention is not probable in the least, therefore it makes sense to believe in the existence of God. This is not saying that it is Anselm’s God, or a Christian God, or any other kind of God pertaining to any religion, that is up to the individual to place their faith in the kind of God they believe in, but I believe that logic dictates the existence of a divine creator who creates with intention and purpose. The leap of faith argument for me at least, comes into play with my Christian faith, and in such cases where faith is involved, leaps of faith are the only true argument that can be used, as God cannot yet be proven one way or the other, and certainly it cannot be proven that Jesus was God himself, but it also cannot be proven that he was simply a crazy man who lived 2000 years ago and called himself the Messiah. Such things require leaps of faith, as in these circumstances, logic leaves us on the edge of the cliff to come to our own personal conclusions.
I personally cannot see a reason for why Anselm’s or the Christian God would not exist. I find personally that what keeps my belief unwavering, is the benefits I have seen in my life through my faith in God, ie: things just tend to go right when following the “will” of God in my life, as is laid out in the bible. As a logical person, I am willing to admit that I COULD be wrong, but as someone with faith and belief in such things, I choose to “know” that I am not, and thus continue my personal system of beliefs.
As an atheist, I argue that god doesn't exist using Pascal and Darwin's arguments. Pascal and I both believe that there is a conflict in rational decision when thinking about a god. I also believe that many believe in a god and follow religion because as long as there is some probability, no matter how small that god exists, people are more likely to just accept the commonly held belief that there is one. If people are faced with going to heaven or hell obviously they will choose heaven and any way of living that will help to get them there. However I don't believe that people can't choose what they believe. Of course they can. Thats the point of life, to choose what you believe and act according to those beliefs to make the world better, etc. Thats like saying Hitler couldn't help killing the jews. That's where fre will comes in to my beliefs.
As an agnostic I argue that God could exist, but that we don't have conclusive evidence by using Kierkegaard's argument, as well as well as the theory of evolution, which is the argument against design. Kierkegaard stated that there isn't any fancy logic in proving God exists, but that one only needs to take a leap of faith. But what if you find you don't have that faith? I think Kierkegaard's argument could be argued for both believing and not believing. A leap of faith is necessary I think, but some people just can't take that leap. I went to a Catholic school for 9 years but my parents are very unreligious so being exposed to two totally different beliefs, I have come to the point of being undecided. Although I was taught in school everything necessary to take that leap of faith, my family background has made me think twice about that. Also, I don't think there is any logical evidence that we can prove that God exists. But that also means there isn't and evidence to prove God doesn't exist. So that's why I find myself in the middle. I can't call myself an atheist because we can't prove God doesn't exist, but I can't call myself a Christian because I just can't take that "leap of faith." Also, because I do tend to think more logically about the matter of religion, The theory of evolution always gets me. True, there could be some designer who just let everything be, but I tend to think more in line with science and there is evidence that points to that theory. Although one needs a leap of faith to believe, some people are unable to take that leap. That's why I consider myself an agnostic. There isn't evidence to prove God exists, but there isn't evidence to prove he doesn't exist, and that is why being agnostic makes most sense to me.
As a believer I believe god does exist. I believe you do have to take some leap of faith to know that God it there. I don't think there is anyway to prove it right or wrong. There's no evidence for either. I've also had some personal experiences in the past that reassured me that he does exist because there was no other way to describe the things happening. I also think that you won't have to pay the consequences if you don't take a leap of faith. If God is an all perfect being, there shouldn't be punishment to good, innocent people.
As an agnostic, I argue that God could exist but that we don't have conclusive evidence with a couple of different arguments. The first argument is Aquinas's first cause theory. Something has to have caused the Big Bang. This something could easily have been some form of God. This is not to specify that it was caused by the Christian God, just the opposite in fact. It could have been caused by any God of any religion. It could have been caused by multiple Gods. It could have been caused by one entity that manifests itself as different Gods to different people. It i also possible that the universe is self-perpetuating and rises from the ashes of the previous universe once the previous universe is dead. "Why is the universe?" then becomes a question of the same nature as "Why is God?"
The next argument that could go either way is the argument from design. Perhaps the universe is really young and was designed by God, who then slipped in fossils and old arrowheads and such to trick those who weren't faithful enough. Perhaps humanity was solely a product of evolution. Perhaps evolution is a means to some God's ends. Discussions like these can rage on for centuries, because the most fierce proponents for each side will not give up nor compromise.
Whose to say who is more correct? I'm not seeing conclusive evidence one way or the other. Even Pascal's logical wager cannot persuade me to a religion, because I believe that the best way to ensure a good place in whatever afterlife happens to be the correct one is to not pick sides and simply be the best person you can be. There is no conclusive proof for any side, so why pick one when you cold simply remain neutral but in good standing with all sides?
As an atheist, I argue that God doesn't exist because I do not believe that God exists. I agree with Kierkagaard that if you do not believe, no amount of logic can persuade you to believe because belief is different than knowledge. I also think that because we'll never know for sure, until it may be to late anyway, that it is truly impossible to ever make someone believe. That is something that they must do on their own. However, because I do not believe doesn't mean that I haven't thought rationally about the existence of God. First off, there are so many different ideas of God in this world, it would be irrational for me to assume that one is better than the other simply because it is more widely practiced. Second, I disagree with most organized religions because they act on a political agenda, rather than being based on faith. I think religions can often contradict the lessons they try to teach. A more specific example of why I don't believe in God (sorry to use a Christian example, but I was raised as a Christian) is that God is said to be personal/loving, omniscient, and omnipotent. If God loves humans, he wouldn't want any of them to end up in Hell. If he is omniscient, he knows ahead of time who is going to end up in Hell. And if he is omnipotent, he can change that. But he doesn't according to religion, so he is either not personal, not omniscient, or not omnipotent, or any combination of the three. If the religion got one of those wrong, why should I think they didn't get the rest of it wrong. I think that my personal belief and the rationale I've heard are both reasons why I don't believe in God.
As a believer, I argue that God exists using the following type of argument that is the cosmological argument. I believe in God and that everything that is moved must be moved by something else. The cosmological argument says that "If each thing that moves is in turn moved by something that itself moves then there will be a first mover." I believe that the first mover is God. If one day they figure out that there really is no God, that won't sway me in a different direction because I have been influenced at an early age and I will continue and believe in Him. I think what I did would be called "taking a leap of faith." I think that everyone should stop wondering whether or not God exists and take that leap of faith.
I think attempting to prove the existence of god is off target. Honestly, everyone believes what they believe for their own reasons, it is a mixture of a leap of faith and how you were raised and your own logical thoughts that are in your head. What irks me is when people try to prove "God." What are we trying to prove? A man in a chair dictating what happens in the world. An invisible force moving through everyone? A three part being with a father, son and ghost? Religion isn't science, it's not something out there to be proven. Religion is about how to live life, science is about rules that govern the universe, the bible/ torah/ koran were all written thousands of years ago and weren't written as proofs of what is real, they were written as guides on how to live life in an ethical way. I don't think it is necessary to conflate the two. I don't think a proof of god is necessary for those who believe because if you believe in something, why do you need someone to prove its true to you, to you it already is true.
As an agnostic, I argue that God could exist, but that we don’t have conclusive evidence. I don't find religion to be very important in my life, ever. I would consider myself a Christian but I think that you have to do more than say you believe in God, you have to actually believe in and worship God. It's not that I don't think that a God does exist, it just isn't important in my life right now. I also feel like I break a lot of rules Christianity puts out there to follow, and if I want to consider myself a believer, I should at least follow those rules and be a decent Christian. I also don't want to waste my time on a God that may necessarily exist. I don't think you can either prove or disprove God unless you believe in one of the two sides.
As a believer, I argue that God exists using the following argument.... I believe that Kierkegaard's argument in the leap of faith is the easiest way to explain belief in God. When I was a child my parents ingrained in me that God does exist, and as I became old enough to understand God and religion I have decided to continue with these beliefs. It is not because there is any evidence that God is real, but rather because I like the concept of some greater being, and some control in the universe. I also like Pascal's idea that God is not personal. For me, my greatest religious struggle is that I feel that it is too complex for God to care about every individual. There are billions of people in the world, and potentially more in the universe. Why should and how can God care about each individual and there struggles. To me, this seems like an almost impossible task.
I do believe in God and I am a Christian. As a believer, I agree with Kierkegaard's arguments on taking a leap of faith. However, if that leap of faith is taken, why is proof needed? Faith is a belief in the unknown, something you cannot see or touch, and something you cannot prove. I argue that God exists because of my own personal opinions and faith. I was brought up in an environment that exposed me to Christianity and God, and I embraced it. It's been a comfort and solace to me, and I fully agree with the words in the Bible that "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Faith and God can't be proved, and logical arguments shouldn't be used in debating this question.
As an agnostic, I believe that God can exist but we do not have conclusive evidence, using Kierkegaard's argument. He argues that there is no way to conclusively prove God through logical arguments, so those who want to believe must take a leap of faith. Though I feel that I live my life through logic, I don't think there's any way to logically argue for God. God and religion are personal things, that one must decide to believe in within oneself. I also agree with the rational thought argument, which states that people believe in God because they prefer its outcome over the alternative. Again, this supports the idea that religion is personal, and not an objective thing that we can prove or disprove.
As one who is undecided, I have a hard time using any evidence to prove what I think. I lean toward atheism, but there are times when I am not sure of that, however generally the conclusion that gets me there is the lack of evidence. I think in a society that essentially demands evidence for everything from the amount of calories in a bag of chips to whether or not someone committed a crime it surprises me to think that people are so quick to believe in something that has so little evidence. As a kid growing up, my family brought me to church and as I got older I always put God and Jesus stories in the same category as Santa Claus. I didn't think that adults could actually believe Jesus made a blind man see as much as they could believe a man in a red suit flew around the world in one night. It has always baffled me the amount of trust people put into a book that was written so many years ago without any solid proof. I just feel as though I need something more to grasp onto to make me believe. I am skeptical in many parts of my life and I like to take my time and be informed about things. For me, religion doesn't get a by of passing a test that proves it just because it was taught to me when I was young. I realize that in a way it is a luxury to consider oneself an atheist because that means you don't feel the need to have a god to lean on, however at this point in my life, I don't think I can be fully convinced.
As an agnostic, I argue that God may or may not exist using the evidence that the only way to know if God is real is to die and come to the "day of judgement". We do not have any conclusive evidence that God is real or not. Believers use Kierkegaard's leap of faith to justify their religious beliefs. Sometimes I can identify with this, and convince myself that I am a Christian. But other times, I cannot identify with this because I have had no "religious epiphany" or anything like that to demonstrate evidence of God's existance. Currently, I really don't know what to call myself.
As an agnostic, I argue that God could exist, but that we don't have conclusive evidence using Kirkegaard's "leap of faith" argument. He claims that by just jumping into believing that a higher being exists will help people find religion. There are times that I find myself making quick prayers, but I don't go to church ever. I don't know what to call myself because to me, much of what religion is, is all the same to me. There is no right or wrong way of practicing it. There also isn't a way to prove that God exists. By proving or disproving that he does, could cause serious trauma to people around the world. I think that God should remain a mystery because life isn't exciting without mysteries.
Post a Comment