HellVictorinho:

It's impossible for anything to make itself.
It's also impossible for certain things to be created.
Living things can't be created but they can be destroyed or killed.

"It's impossible for anything to make itself."

I deeply appreciate the fact that you have spoken Truly even if it was in support of my assertion and I do thank you for it.

With that statement from a bonafide and independent Opposition, my case is made and i hereby close my assertion.

Thank you all!

LordReed:
1. If a god exists, belief or lack thereof does nothing to change the situation.

2. If a god exists and is the source of all morality but yet you can adhere to the morality without belief then belief adds nothing to the equation.

Going by these to points above I am inclined to say belief in god is useless.

I could add more to this as time goes on but I'd be happy to hear your view.

1. Quite true that:
If God truely exist, belief or lack thereof (in God) does nothing to change the reality of God's existence.

2. If God is the Source of all morality (rules for interpersonal relationships) then He must set up a system of justice (morality is meaningless without justice). It will be stupidity to know that God is the source of morality and not expect Justice.

Hence:
1. Justice require that God is not impersonal and will intervene in giving both rewards and disciplines to earthlings for their acts of morality or immorality.
2. If God will judge the acts of men, then it is recklessness not to know His rules. Thus, If God desires some character traits from earthlings, a human being who doesn't know His expectations is a stupid fool!
3. If God is thus the source of morality and justice, it is expected that earthlings should know His laws and His powers even if the knowlege of God is not TOTAL or PERFECT!

BELIEVING is taking a position based on having imperfect but sufficient information, knowledge and understanding about a person or issue at stake.

Is it possible to set a rule of morality without justice?

LordReed:
1. If a god exists, belief or lack thereof does nothing to change the situation.

2. If a god exists and is the source of all morality but yet you can adhere to the morality without belief then belief adds nothing to the equation.

Going by these to points above I am inclined to say belief in god is useless.

I could add more to this as time goes on but I'd be happy to hear your view.

I think for a lot of people believing in god helps them act more ethically and if their more ethical behaviour benefits the rest of us then believing in god is not useless.

Also if god punishes people who don't believe in it then believe in god would be useful - for avoiding punishment.

Dtruthspeaker:


"It's impossible for anything to make itself."

I deeply appreciate the fact that you have spoken Truly even if it was in support of my assertion and I do thank you for it.

With that statement from a bonafide and independent Opposition, my case is made and i hereby close my assertion.

Thank you all!

It is not in support of your assertion.
There are some things that can't be created.

HellVictorinho:


It's impossible for anything to make itself.
It's also impossible for certain things to be created.
Living things can't be created but they can be destroyed or killed.

Hence, knowing that the universe had not always existed, and it is impossible for the universe to make itself, then
1. the universe was made
2. Whatever made the universe is NOT a thing!
Note:
A thing is that made of matter and occupies space.

John 4:24:
" God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."


A spirit is a living being not made of matter!

shadeyinka:

Hence, knowing that the universe had not always existed, and it is impossible for the universe to make itself, then
1. the universe was made
2. Whatever made the universe is NOT a thing!
Note:
A thing is that made of matter and occupies space.

[s]John 4:24:
" God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
[/s]

A spirit is a living being not made of matter!

I disagree.
The fact that something has a beginning doesn't mean it was made.
The fact that it's impossible for anything to make itself doesn't mean the universe was made.
A thing can be made of something different from matter.
The things made of matter exist within the universe .
The things that are not made of matter exist outside the universe.
A spirit can't exist since it has no form.

HellVictorinho:

I disagree.
The fact that something has a beginning doesn't mean it was made.
The fact that it's impossible for anything to make itself doesn't mean the universe was mad loope.

You are just making assertions contradicting your claims.

1. If something has a beginning, then, there was a prior time it didn't exist.
2. If a thing came from inexistence to existing, it must be made (for according to your postulate)
It's impossible for anything to make itself.

HellVictorinho:

A thing can be made of something different from matter.

Just one example

HellVictorinho:

The things made of matter exist within the universe .
The things that are not made of matter exist outside the universe.

A spirit isn't made of matter

HellVictorinho:

A spirit can't exist since it has no form.

A spirit isn't made of matter and you yourself said "things" made not of matter exist outside our universe!

Your logic is warped and has entangled you!

shadeyinka:

You are just making assertions contradicting your claims.

1. If something has a beginning, then, there was a prior time it didn't exist.
2. If a thing came from inexistence to existing, it must be made (for according to your postulate)
It's impossible for anything to make itself.


Just one example



A spirit isn't made of matter


A spirit isn't made of matter and you yourself said "things" made not of matter exist outside our universe!

Your logic is warped and has entangled you!

There are ageless indivisible objects.
These objects form patterns/structures when an observer is exposed to them by chance.
The universe is just another pattern.
In other words, when you are exposed,these objects appear to have combined to form distinguishable arrangements..
The things outside the universe also have a form but it doesn't mean they are made of matter.
Since a spirit has no form or remains neither inside nor outside the universe,then it can't exist.

HellVictorinho:


I don't write about Gods a lot.
I only state that they can't exist.
My name is Hell but it doesn't mean I think about Gods.
Why should I think about something that can't exist?

I believe you, Hell. I believe you.

HellVictorinho:


There are ageless indivisible objects.
These objects form patterns/structures when an observer is exposed to them by chance.
The universe is just another pattern.
In other words, when you are exposed,these objects appear to have combined to form distinguishable arrangements..
The things outside the universe also have a form but it doesn't mean they are made of matter.
Since a spirit has no form or remains neither inside nor outside the universe,then it can't exist.

I sometimes wonder if you have a compression of your writings. They are not scientific nor logical.

You are just making assertions contradicting your claims.

1. If something has a beginning, then, there was a prior time it didn't exist.
2. If a thing came from inexistence to existing, it must be made (for according to your postulate)
It's impossible for anything to make itself.

QED!

shadeyinka:

I sometimes wonder if you have a compression of your writings. They are not scientific nor logical.

You are just making assertions contradicting your claims.

1. If something has a beginning, then, there was a prior time it didn't exist.
2. If a thing came from inexistence to existing, it must be made (for according to your postulate)
It's impossible for anything to make itself.

QED!

You are just repeating the same thing baselessly.
QED!

shadeyinka:

I sometimes wonder if you have a compression of your writings. They are not scientific nor logical.

You are just making assertions contradicting your claims.

1. If something has a beginning, then, there was a prior time it didn't exist.
2. If a thing came from inexistence to existing, it must be made (for according to your postulate)
It's impossible for anything to make itself.

QED!

The things outside the universe have different forms, actually.

HellVictorinho:


You are just repeating the same thing baselessly.
QED!

HellVictorinho:

The things outside the universe have different forms, actually.

Your assertions are baseless either scientifically or logically!

Can you give just one example of "that thing" you claim is outside the universe that is not made of matter?

HellVictorinho:

It is not in support of your assertion.
There are some things that can't be created.

That is your saying but I do not want to proceed further!

finofaya:


I think for a lot of people believing in god helps them act more ethically and if their more ethical behaviour benefits the rest of us then believing in god is not useless.

Also if god punishes people who don't believe in it then believe in god would be useful - for avoiding punishment.

Good counters. I appreciate your thoughts.

1Sharon:


HELL!

OP, HELL!

LMAO!

budaatum:


Threads like these always begin from premises that we often tend to just take for granted and assume we know what is meant. No one asks, What Is God, what is a belief, what does it mean to say a thing exists, and we all jump in claiming we all understand equally and mean the same thing when the truth is, we are all ignorant fuqs, relatively speaking. Pity. How much more knowledgeable we would be if we only tried harder instead of making out our relative beliefs and misunderstandings is all there is to know.

Anyway. Yes, my Lord, belief in God is pointless if one has the intellectual capacity to understand that by 'believing' one obviously does not know.

But if by "believe" you mean a provisional stopholder until you knock and ask and seek with all your heart and soul and being and mind until you discover and find and know and understand, then it is not pointless at all, because it would be like having an hypothesis, which is the beginning of research and learning so that one may actually know.

So, let buda pray. Oh Mighty and Everlasting Lord God who none of us has yet seen or truly know if or where You may exist, let us be minded to grant ourselves the strenght and powers for the intellectual rigour that subjects like this require.
And please do not let the lowly satan add its division of theist versus atheist into the mix so we do not learn. In the name of the Jesus I read about in a book do I buda pray. Amen

Once again my dear buda you add clarity and focus. I will modify my OP to reflect your input. Much appreciated.

shadeyinka:

1. Quite true that:
If God truely exist, belief or lack thereof (in God) does nothing to change the reality of God's existence.

2. If God is the Source of all morality (rules for interpersonal relationships) then He must set up a system of justice (morality is meaningless without justice). It will be stupidity to know that God is the source of morality and not expect Justice.

Hence:
1. Justice require that God is not impersonal and will intervene in giving both rewards and disciplines to earthlings for their acts of morality or immorality.
2. If God will judge the acts of men, then it is recklessness not to know His rules. Thus, If God desires some character traits from earthlings, a human being who doesn't know His expectations is a stupid fool!
3. If God is thus the source of morality and justice, it is expected that earthlings should know His laws and His powers even if the knowlege of God is not TOTAL or PERFECT!

BELIEVING is taking a position based on having imperfect but sufficient information, knowledge and understanding about a person or issue at stake.

Is it possible to set a rule of morality without justice?

Hmmm, I must take time to ruminate on this. Thanks for sharing.

MaxInDHouse:

I think you missed the in-depth meaning of the word "BELIEF" it simply connotes TRUST in what someone you know will do or won't do.
For instance you cited the example of Buhari, this man is the elected President the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces in Nigeria. If you say i know Buhari will do something it simply means you trust (believe) him, this depends on how much you know the man (Buhari)
If someone else say otherwise it's still the same thing, he doesn't know the man that much so whether you believe or not this man will strive to do what is best in his own eyes irrespective of the result his actions may bring whether positive or negative!


Adhering to some forms of morality is one thing and giving the glory and praise to the source is another thing, both are vital before any positive result is expected.
WHY?
Imagine little kids all playing in the field and while they're together most of them realized that one of them possessed fine qualities.
Remember they all see themselves as equal in sense so before the virtuous attributes of that single child could appeal to the majority then it must come from a superior, they can only agree to learn to put on those fine qualities if it belongs to someone superior to all of them, never will the majority agree to make their own mate a role model!
That's what is causing trouble in the world today, each and everyone wants to claim he/she knows what is best, nobody wants to submit to another.
The hypocritical religious leaders knew this fact that's why they're creating more Churches to woo people whose mindsets is in harmony with their own line of thought. Yet they want their gullible followers to think they're worshipers of the same God with religionists having a totally different idea from theirs!

As my dear budaatum pointed out, I will have to define belief so we can properly discuss it.

As for morality we have already granted the god is the source of objective morality so your analogy is speaking to something else. What that point is focused on is what role belief plays in morality if morality can be attained without it.

LordReed:


Hmmm, I must take time to ruminate on this. Thanks for sharing.

I appreciate your objectivity!

MaxInDHouse:

I think you missed the in-depth meaning of the word "BELIEF" it simply connotes TRUST in what someone you know will do or won't do.
For instance you cited the example of Buhari, this man is the elected President the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces in Nigeria. If you say i know Buhari will do something it simply means you trust (believe) him, this depends on how much you know the man (Buhari)

You sure are some funny Max. Go to the politics section and you'd find lots of people who believed and trusted and claimed they knew Buhari was going to be the messiah of Nigeria but now they call him satan the Nigeria destroyer, which emphatically disproves what you wrote above about them knowing what they believed and trusted, since they obviously ignorantly knew nothing about Buhari despite him calling them lazy fuqs in his first term.

P.s. I know you will argue, but forgive me if I do not respond unless I find something worthy in your argument, which I believe is very unlikely.

HellVictorinho:


I don't write about Gods a lot.
I only state that they can't exist.
My name is Hell but it doesn't mean I think about Gods.
Why should I think about something that can't exist?

How do you write at all about something you don't think about?

budaatum:


How do you write at all about something you don't think about?

I don't write about Gods.
In other words, I don't describe them.
What else do you want to hear?

shadeyinka:



Your assertions are baseless either scientifically or logically!

Can you give just one example of "that thing" you claim is outside the universe that is not made of matter?

Since nothing cannot exist,there are things outside the universe.
I don't have to give examples.
Also, you shouldn't come up with any goddamn definition of nothing because you will end up describing something.
Nothing is not made of anything so nothing cannot exist.
Scientists describe what exists within the universe or as matter/antimatter.
I won't mention energy because it's not an object.
Ultimately,both structures inside and outside the universe are made of ageless indivisible objects.

HellVictorinho:

I don't write about Gods.
In other words, I don't describe them.
What else do you want to hear?

Description, is not the only way to write about Gods. You did not describe Gods in your post above but you did write in it about Gods, albeit about you not writing about Gods which you are clearly writing about in a thread about Gods in a section in Nairaland about Gods in discussion with people who are obviously discussing Gods.

But forgive me Hell. I'm just pointing out to you in case you are not aware of your God obsession, that thou doth protest so much against that which thou obviously doeth to the extent that if thou changeth thy name to GodVictorsOverHell it would very most certainly fit thee, though you'd need to strive some to live up to it, of course.

budaatum:


How do you write at all about something you don't think about?

I don't describe Gods because I don't think they exist.

budaatum:


Description, is not the only way to write about Gods. You did not describe Gods in your post above but you did write in it about Gods, albeit about you not writing about Gods which you are clearly writing about in a thread about Gods in a section in Nairaland about Gods in discussion with people who are obviously discussing Gods.

But forgive me Hell. I'm just pointing out to you in case you are not aware of your God obsession, that thou doth protest so much against that which thou obviously doeth to the extent that if thou changeth thy name to GodVictorsOverHell it would very most certainly fit thee, though you'd need to strive some to live up to it, of course.

I still don't agree.
The fact I'm commenting in a thread where people are debating the existence of Gods doesn't mean I'm obsessed with Gods.
In fact, I am not obsessed with anything.
So,it is you that is not aware of the fact that you are wrong.

HellVictorinho:


I still don't agree.
The fact I'm commenting in a thread where people are debating the existence of Gods doesn't mean I'm obsessed with Gods.
In fact, I am not obsessed with anything.
So,it is you that is not aware of the fact that you are wrong.

That's okay, Hell. Trust me when I say you are not as bad as some.

HellVictorinho:

Since nothing cannot exist,there are things outside the universe.
I don't have to give examples.
Also, you shouldn't come up with any goddamn definition of nothing because you will end up describing something.
Nothing is not made of anything so nothing cannot exist.
Scientists describe what exists within the universe or as matter/antimatter.
I won't mention energy because it's not an object.
Ultimately,both structures inside and outside the universe are made of ageless indivisible objects.

The Universe doesn't have a scientific boundary so that it is meaningless speaking about existence outside our universe.

I have not even defined nothing. I have only defined things. And a spirit by definition is not a thing!

shadeyinka:

The Universe doesn't have a scientific boundary so that it is meaningless speaking about existence outside our universe.

I have not even defined nothing. I have only defined things. And a spirit by definition is not a thing!

Pure nonsense.
If scientists can't get to the boundaries,it doesn't mean the boundaries don't exist.
Most scientists want to SEE the boundaries before accepting that they exist.
Hell Victorinho doesn't have to SEE the boundaries before he accepts because he KNOWS that something can only exist when it has limits.
If something doesn't have limits,then it doesn't exist.
That's because the limits give it a specific form or/and show that it is made of different things that can't be divided.
These indivisible objects are ageless.
If a spirit is not a thing,then it doesn't exist.

budaatum:


That's okay, Hell. Trust me when I say you are not as bad as some.

I am totally different from those people you are referring to.

HellVictorinho:

Pure nonsense.
If scientists can't get to the boundaries,it doesn't mean the boundaries don't exist.
Most scientists want to SEE the boundaries before accepting that they exist.
Hell Victorinho doesn't have to SEE the boundaries before he accepts because he KNOWS that something can only exist when it has limits.
If something doesn't have limits,then it doesn't exist.
That's because the limits give it a specific form or/and show that it is made of different things that can't be divided.
These indivisible objects are ageless.
If a spirit is not a thing,then it doesn't exist.

Then such a person like you shouldn't have a problem for the existence of matter-less beings, matter-less universes and matter-less objects.

For you, atheism is just a CHOICE!