CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I believe in one God so I guess my answer should be no with Gods plural.
I have no proof of the existence of this one true God but I know I feel it all around me and see it in my children and try to reflect it in my actions. I do not go to church on Sunday and I do not think its necessary to worship God in building a with others.
Now, you won't find any hard evidence, but there is plenty of other evidence that God does as well as doesn't exist. None of which can be proven. Have fun.
That the way to do it!... If you don't understand something, or cannot accept that something is as yet still unknown...simplify!! Dumb it down! A big man in the sky with a beard waved a magic wand and ping..universe is ready! having a god of the gaps is great isn't it!
I believe in God also but how do you not have any proof when there is a bible? how do you see it in your children and feel it around you but you can't take an hour out of your week to go to church and learn more. Get some information from churches and other believers and realize that if you know God is out there than why not worship him?? Why not do what he asks of us? Why not do something good when he's the one whos given you true life?!
Ok, so the bible is evidence of god? Well, I'm making a new book, and this is what it says:
"THE BIBLE II, ONLINE EDITION: jonny 23 created the universe, life, and everything 20 minutes ago. This includes all of our thoughts and memories, so we do not realize that the universe was created 20 minutes ago. jonny 23 is, in fact, God. Now you, child of jonny 23, bow down in prayer, donate to me, build a place of worship, and blow up everyone who doesn't believe." Now I have evidence. You cannot prove me wrong.
I don't have proof that everyone else doesn't already have! And I don't believe I need to go to a building to worship! I can do that when ever and wear ever I choose, as for doing what he asks of us....I do!
the debate over the Criteria for existence continues:
-is a lack of physical observation and materialistic experience sufficient to Disprove God's existence?
-is emotional or immaterial experience of God sufficient to Prove it?
here's an argument For the existence of God:
1-god is spirit: therefore immaterial and invisible
2-therefore the existence of God CANNOT BE TESTED by mere lack of physical evidence of his being or residence
(2a-example: the loch ness monster. does it exist? well, can we find it? see it? does it leave 'footprints'? does it show up on sonar? we look for physical evidence of the existence of physical beings, supplemented by deduction and induction.)
(2b-how does one look for immaterial beings?)
3-immaterial, invisible things exist, such as: Purpose, Truth and Falsity, Knowledge, Character, Innocence, Logic, Commitment, and the Emotions.
(3a-this is a short list. most any concept, quality, or abstract thing would qualify)
(3b-materialists would say knowledge, etc, and especially emotions are not abstract but are merely chemicals and electricity in the brain.
this is an insufficient description-
emotions may have a physical cause (i disagree) and a physical manifestation (indisputable) and still transcend them-
knowledge may be stored physically and still be abstract-
form is not matter, yet interacts with it.
commitment, etc, are even less physical.
what of truth? logic? modern science has these as their foundation: having the intent to discover Reality (the True way things are) by methodical, logical means.)
4-therefore, a materialist does not have a complete, comprehensive, exhaustive knowledge of the universe
(4a-and can only describe the physical manifestations of immaterial things, not their essence. just like someone may follow the letter of the law and disobey the Spirit of it. this is the use of a technicality to escape the intent and purpose of a rule)
5-therefore the test of God's existence is not materialistic.
yeah, I upvoted your downvote. You'll notice in religious debates you get downvoted for bringing up pesky facts, but I read the same study. Consequently there are drugs that induce the same feeling as church as well, wonder why church goers are so anti-drugs with that in mind...
I'm sorry guys, but how does a drug that induces feelings prove Gods don't exist? I mean, if I can induce you to "see" a car in front of you, now that doesn't prove cars don't exist, does it?
The area of the brain they're talking about is the temporal lobe. This is the area that's connected to sensory data. When it's overstimulated, it can cause the feelings people associate with religious experiences. It doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, what it does do, however, is show that certain external stimulus can lead to these feelings. As a TLE sufferer, I can tell you that I get the same experience out of walking into a techno club as someone can get from going to a weekend long AOG retreat (having experienced a weekend long AOG retreat). I get the holy vision of whatever God I'm fond of at the time, or angel, or demon, or alien (I only saw an alien once). It's because my brain is more easily tripped than most people. A friend of mine, after giving away the religion he'd been raised in, said he had a "religious" experience from attending a U2 concert. It cemented his belief further that God wasn't real. Rather than evidence FOR a god, I feel it's more like evidence against, simply because it's such an easily triggered flaw in our brains.
Ok, I didn't use induced feelings to evidence God's existence, I simply disputed its use to disprove God's existence. So no, I'm not simply using feelings at all! Feelings are feelings.
To evidence God's existence, I referred to the universe, everything around us (as I have in arguments with other debaters here). God is evidenced through his work.
ok so you believe that the universe just happened... I can see that for some it might be easier to believe that. I for one, can't believe that something as perfect as this can simply just happen so I choose to believe in its creation by someone.
As an analogy, for me, it's easier to believe that someone built the Stone Henge (because there's some sort of design about it just like the universe) rather say that it just happened. The method of its construction can be explained by physical sciences, but these sciences won't be able to prove that someone didn't build it and that it just happened.
That's because someone DID build Stonehenge. People built it. It's difficult to believe otherwise. However, if I said that people built Mount Everest, that would clearly be ridiculous.
Cut and pasted directly from there, because I'm lazy and I'd just end up coming to these eventually anyway, the three basic arguments against it: There are three main arguments against the Watchmaker analogy. The first is that complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes (as in the "monkeys with typewriters" analogy). The second argument is that the watch is a faulty analogy. The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who created God?
"the letter A is specific but not complex; the sequence NDEIRUABFDMOJHRINKE is complex, but not specific; the sequence METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL has specific complexity and is recognizable as a sentence. the sentence contains the type of information we would like to describe, the kind of information characterized by specific complexity."
--my paraphrase from Dembski's book intelligent design
--there is specific complexity in the watch, such as refined and shaped metal; various gears, springs, and levers in concert (complexity) that move hands across markings in regular, geometric forms that convey specific meaning.
these things DO NOT arise from nature-- particularly refined metal and plastic, and therefore also those shapes and qualities that refined metal can provide, such as springs, do not arise in nature either.
no known mindless natural process can produce a gear, let alone multiple gears, levers, and springs that fit together in different ways to move a hand in a regular manner that provides information about the path of the sun through the sky.
for that matter, what known mindless natural cause produces living beings? none. (read about Spontaneous Generation -- the first proof ever developed in modern science, the one that gave birth to the scientific method, proved that living things arise only from other living things.)
--it is not a faulty analogy because humans, plants, and watches are more complex than rocks, though maybe differing by degree (and see above).
and the degree does not detract from the argument, rather it strengthens it.
--also, if the watchmaker is more complex than the watch, how does the principle of greater complexity allow complex artifacts to arise in nature? how does such a principle allow us to dismiss the analogy(see above--'degree')?
what about entropy and the law of thermodynamics, in which collective complexity and order are lost over time?
Someone will try and argue that it's a very very very infinitely slim chance that something as perfect as all this universe can simply exist spontaneously, but because it's so vast it may just be possible.... uh huh, sure.
Stone Henge was just an analogy. Like the watchmaker analogy. I know that people actually built it. God created the universe, and in it, a mountain exist on a planet and we call it Mt. Everest.
The arguments against the watchmaker analogy are just not agreeable:
1 - complex artifacts can arise from mindless natural processes: who made the substances and the processes in the first place? Accident?
2 - The watch is a faulty analogy: ummm says who? and on what grounds?
3 - Complexity proves intelligent design so who created God?: I don't care who made God, doesn't that prove God exist anyway? For all I know God was created by something else or God may just be the top guy! Actually why does someone else need to create him just because he created us? Don't you think you can create something more complex than yourself? Why does the creator need to be more far more complex than his creation? What about your children? Aren't they more complex then you? Taller? smarter? healthier?
1. who made the substances and the processes in the first place? You don't seem to be grasping the concept. There was never a who made...
2. Faulty analogy... on what grounds? On the grounds that it relies upon a "who made" and assumes a maker rather than allowing for formation without a maker.
3. a. Like I said, I simply copy-pasted this from Wikipedia, I possibly would have used different wording. However, since we're following your analogy... Stonehenge is nowhere near as complex as a human, so following your logic a god must be far more complex than a human. And no, my children aren't more complex than I am. I have never created something more complex than myself, I don't think any human has. And I don't believe childbirth is me creating a child. I believe childbirth is a chemical process. It makes it no less astounding to be able to explain how it happens.
Where did your god arise? What formed your god? You ask why someone needed to create God... I have to ask you why you think that someone needed to create us? It's the same basic premise.
It's getting late where I am, I'm going to bed. I'll leave you with this link which may help somewhat with your understanding of why #3 is a big kicker.
1 - you say noone made it, but I say God made it (and we can replace the word it with anything you care to: string, particles, dimensions, whatever)
2 - we say "God made" which could actually cover the fact that God made the initial whatever" that allows for everything else to just happen... so I dunno, sounds like the God theory beats the just happens theory.
3 - I say childbirth is magic, you say it's an astounding chemical process. I keep telling you that that's how you explain* things (you use chemistry). The astounding chemical process of childbirth is magical, isn't it? If you say it isn't, we're onto the definition of magic?
Where did God arise? I don't know, but that's not the debate.
What formed God? I don't know, but again that's not the debate.
I said "why does someone need to create God", which was meant as a rhetorical question with an obvious answer: "noone needs to create God".
We're here to debate the existence of God, and not why God was created or how or what created god.
1 - you say noone made it, but I say God made it (and we can replace the word it with anything you care to: string, particles, dimensions, whatever)
2 - we say "God made" which could actually cover the fact that God made the initial whatever" that allows for everything else to just happen... so I dunno, sounds like the God theory beats the just happens theory.
3 - I say childbirth is magic, you say it's an astounding chemical process. I keep telling you that that's how you explain* things (you use chemistry). The astounding chemical process of childbirth is magical, isn't it? If you say it isn't, we're onto the definition of magic?
Where did God arise? I don't know, but that's not the debate.
What formed God? I don't know, but again that's not the debate.
I said "why does someone need to create God", which was meant as a rhetorical question with an obvious answer: "noone needs to create God".
We're here to debate the existence of God, and not why God was created or how or what created god.
Well, you've come to the crux, and pretty much cemented Rev's point, though from my experience arguing religions with the religious I doubt you will see it.
Just as "I said "why does someone need to create God", which was meant as a rhetorical question with an obvious answer: "noone needs to create God"." - your words.
Just as you feel that to be the case. It could just as easily be said that "noone needs to create the Universe" or anything in it.
If one does not need creation, then neither does anything else. If god simply can be then the Universe and everything in it can simply be.
There is no logical reason why it should not simply be. In fact it makes the equation simpler. Why add god?
At any rate. Just as it is impossible for you to prove god's existence, so it is impossible to disprove any negative.
Here's the difference though.
I can say I believe in Santa Clause. I can say that I take as proof the presents I got when I was a kid. It is impossible for you to disprove Santa Clause's existance to me. If I choose to believe, there's nothing to stop me from believing and all you can do is say so and so says it doesn't exist. You can tell me it doesn't make sense. You can argue till you are blue in the face.
If I choose to believe in something that does not exist, you cannot disprove something that does not exist's existance.
Same for god. I cannot disprove it because you cannot disprove a negative. What I can do though is point out the holes in your logic.
Noone needs to create God, God created the universe. That sentence has no flaws in it.
You can't say that because noone needs to create God, therefore...blah blah.
Your saying that it's easier to believe that it could simply be, but it's not easier. You would have to explain it with really really difficult sciencitic principles and advanced maths. It's easier to believe that God made it all.
About Santa Claus, I can prove that your parents bought the present for you instead of it being dropped-in by Santa Claus. I can prove conclusively most things about Santa Claus, but until I do, you may well be correct that Santa Claus exist! Do you see my point?
About pointing out the holes in my logic, it's kinda not possible because we're talking about something that's probably not within our human mind's power to even understand... Non-believers will keep coming up with this and that, and believers will keep saying that God made this and that... The only "flaw" is the who made God question, which is easily answered with noone.
Okay, this particular line of debate is beginning to bore me.
if you don't need to explain god's existance with complex equations and physics and whatnot because he "just is"
Then there's no reason you would not also be able to say that all of the stuff making up the universe "just is"
It's the same thing, if one thing can simply be, so can another. End of story.
And no, you cannot dissprove Santa's existance. Even if you were able to somehow produce reciepts, I could just say "Santa works in mysterious ways." Or some other lame thing.
My idea of god isn't Jesus or Alah because there are so many things wrong with that theory. People have picked Jesus and Alah to shreds with explanations of how normal they were. The same people can prove to you Santa doesn't exist and they'll do it with ease too. If you have a humanly possible finite idea of something, then it's humanly possible to prove it or disprove it: Ideas like Santa lives in the North pole, rides a sleigh in the sky, comes down the chimney, those ideas are so definitely human. Just like Jesus and Alah. So forget about them.
My idea of God is not humanly possible to explain, because he is above human science or maths, what we explain so far with science and maths is his universe and things in it (his work).
"If one thing can simply be, so can another" - can is the operative word here. "If one thing can simply be, so must another" would be a different thing.
God exists outside of Space, Matter, and Time, therefore, he is uncreated. So, the whole watchmaker example doesn't really do much to benifit your point does it?
@ "I'm sorry guys, but how does a drug that induces feelings prove Gods don't exist?"
No one has made such a claim. They have only demonstrated that feelings are not evidence nor proof of the existence of any gods.
Feelings attributed to Jehovah are no more compelling as evidence than feelings attributed to Kali. Feelings are products of chemical changes in the brain. Dopamine is not a god.
Just because people feel things to be true, that doesn't necessarily make them to be true. Certainly, you are correct when you say that iamdavidh's statement doesn't disprove the existence of gods. However in cases where someone states that something exists, and someone says "I don't believe you", the burden of proof lies upon the person who is stating that the thing exists. When a feeling can be shown to be replicated mechanically, or by certain mental or brain impairments, as has been done in other positions within this debate, other proofs must follow.
How is that proof? It's beautiful, yes. It's harmonious, yes. It's wonderful, yes. It's awe-inspiring, yes. However, I don't see anything which points to a God as causation.
ok, let me see... I don't know much about the material in the bibles and korans but i'm sure they mention something about the creation of man and woman and the universe! Is that what you need?
I don't. Create is a word I try not to use when considering the start of the universe, because "create" implies "creator". It's a difficult word to avoid, and sometimes I slip up when I'm talking about beginnings, but in these sort of conversations I prefer to use the word "formation" rather than "creation". I am agnostic. I simply don't know.
However, I strongly lean toward M-Theory, Big Bang, and on a more local basis, current evolutionary theory. None of these implies the action of any being.
I am asking for your specific proofs. If you aren't familiar with the Bible or the Koran, don't refer to them. I don't actually accept these texts as proofs.
The yes side: - we explain the beginning by believing that God did it all.
The no side: - you try to explain the beginning by believing in advanced sciences. What you don't understand is that all the sciences that humans have are simply means to explain God's work, they don't replace God's work. Aerodynamics explain how birds can be airborne, not make them airborne. Quantum mechanics explain how particles behave, not create their behaviors.
So when you say you lean towards M-Theory and Big Bang (instead of God), you're actually saying "My aunt didn't bake this cake, but the Cake Bake Theory is how it happened!"
It should actually be "Your aunt baked the cake and the Cake Bake Theory is how it can be explained"
I'm not saying instead of God. God doesn't even come into the equation. When you say "Cake Bake Theory" it implies that someone bakes the cake. M-Theory doesn't require God in the equation. It works without it. There is no causation. You've not shown me how God is necessary for the equation to work.
Ok, when i say Cake Bake Theory I'm referring to the sciences of baking. This doesn't really require anyone to bake at all:
The wheat can be accidently crushed (by falling rocks or trees perhaps) and then mixed with the crushed eggs because a chicken made a nest in the wheat field some time before and layed eggs in it, and then... i don't know, the sugar and yeast can also accidentally come into contact with that mixture somehow (I'm sure you can explain it string theory or something) and then the entire mixture gets exposed to the right amount of heat somehow (from the sun perhaps, or the whole thing could all occur next to a hot spring somewhere, and if the tree that had crushed the wheat in the beginning had cinnamon flavoured bark, we'll end up with my perfectly baked favorite!!!
Sure the possibilities are low, but we've got soooo many things and possibilities happening in the universe that ofcourse it can theoretically happen... yeah.
Oh and thanks to you I went and look up M-theory on Wikipedia, and I'd like to quote something from there: "Technologically, it may never be possible for it to be "proven." So you've made the choice to believe in some theory only a handful of humans have the time to theorize using maths and sciences while asserting that it may never be proven? I don't know about you but believing in gods actually sounds better :)
First, I don't think Wikipedia is the best place to be actually looking up scientific theories. It's okay for quick run-of-the-mill stuff, but when you're looking at hard core physics, Wikipedia just doesn't cut it. My suggestion is that you check out New Scientist and type M-theory into the search box. You'll come up with a number of articles about it.
And of course it may never be able to be proven technologically. That doesn't mean it can't be supported mathematically. Nor does it mean that I'm going to hold onto it if something more plausible comes along. Whereas the belief in gods is unsupported and unsupportable. Favouring a theory I have a small amount of understanding of is not the same as having an idealogical belief.
- your theory (of the beginning) that everything was accidental, can be theorized using the evidences of a few far-fetched scientific principles and maths, which may never be proven.
- my theory is that someone did it all because it was way too complex (technologically impossibly complex) not to have been.
Just like the cinnamon cake theory,
- I choose to believe my aunt baked the favorite snack (and Cake Bake Theory is how she did it), while
- you choose to believe it was all an accident and try to explain that with Cake Bake Theory and a few other scientific & maths principles.
The only difference in our beliefs is the existence of a creator (baker). While my belief includes the principles of science and maths, yours exclude the creator.
So I ask you: which is more likely? My aunt baked the cake or it happened accidently? I emphisized the words more likely.
If you had actually taken note earlier, I'm agnostic, not atheist. I actually don't care how the cake came to be, so long as I get a slice. Your aunt may have baked it, but I wasn't there. I think it tastes more like a shop bought cake, I don't think she cooked it at all. I don't care if the shop found it on the side of the road, or if the shop mined it, or if it came from the byproducts of crude oil.
The universe is not a cake. I personally find chance a far more rational and likely explanation than a creator.
Hahahahaha!! granted! Doubt away... how is that easier though? I personally find it rather unsettling to be suspended in a state of uncertainty about it all...
What I think that revkristine is saying is that why do you need to add god to the equation when we can explain so many things without him? And agnostics can be either agnostic atheists or agnostic theists, I have never met anyone that is exactly in between and I doubt that it's possible.
That was an argument against Kinda's argument. Not against the existence of god. I was simply stating that because one feels something does not make it true - in what was meant to be a clever way :/
Well that's the problem with god debates. It comes down to feelings because there's no proof one way or another. However, I feel the lack of proof is more likely to mean a lack of existance, while the religious tend to feel this lack of proof means nothing at all - then they go further and take things that are not proof as proof.
Ultimately I cannot argue actual existance. I can argue though that those real things the religious take as proof are not proof at all. That part is actually kind of easy.
This debate has been quite interesting and yes ultimately it comes down to feelings or faith. You have faith in things that can't be proven all the time, but you choose to not have the ultimate faith, the father of all faiths.
You feel that the universe just is, while others like me feel that it must have been designed. You say that it's more likely that it just is because you can't prove it otherwise. We say that the perfection of everything and how they work is proof.
Unless some religious nuts out there, belief in God doesn't take the responsibilities of my life away from me. I don't simply say it's God's will or God will take care of it, or God will show me the way. It's how I admire the beauty all around me, because in my admiration I feel the need to think of a someone to respect. I guess that's how it works for me.
I'm gonna ignore anything that claims to be a mixture of agnostic and atheist here. I find their existence utterly confusing, and at the end of it all there's not even a wow. It's like, woohoo we do or don't believe if we should or should not believe or not believe and even if we don't believe we think there should or should not be proof and that proof can't be obtained or provided and basically we're committed or not committed to this whole idea...
Have I taken this too far out of context? Maybe, maybe not, I'm not sure if I can or can't commit to that question...
I find the existence of theists very confusing because they believe in something that you can't even prove to exist. Why would anyone want to believe in something that is not even proven to exist? The world is so much more beautiful if you see it for what it is and actually understand why things are the way they are instead of just saying "oh god must have done it" and leave it.
Because in the world of probabilities, the probabilities of someone having done it all is (to me) higher than the probabilities of it having materialized all on its own.
Since both theories can't be proved, I'm going with the one that is more likely, the one that (to me) makes more sense!
When you are debating, basing your entire position on a feeling is meaningless. Everyone feels something. Everyone's feelings are contradictory with each other. Basing your argument on a feeling in essentially a way of saying "I have no evidence for my argument but I will support it regardless."
Don't confuse the feelings of 'joy' you have at a U2 concert with spiritual happiness.
Until you feel it, you won't understand it. You won't feel it until you try to understand it. However you seem to dismiss it completely.
Not even close to an argument on so many levels.
Feelings don't make or justify and argument, or determine truth. You're already admitting that you don't possess any remarkable insight or truth by resorting to pure feelings as your sole argument.
Secondly I used to have a spiritual side until I realised how silly it was and how I was just deluding myself. I woke up to reality and you're still asleep in touchy-feely-believy land. Nothing I can say will bring you out of it, because you want so desperately to believe in your delusion, and you'll use every mental trick in the book to hang onto it.
Thirdly your entire statement could be rewritten as:
Don't confuse the feelings of 'joy' you have at a U2 concert with santa clause.
Until you feel him, you won't understand him. You won't feel him until you try to understand him. However you seem to dismiss him completely.
And it would have just as much merit. But it really ought to be written as:
Don't confuse the feelings of 'joy' you have with spiritual happiness with the joy you get watching a U2 concert or climbing a mountain, because they are one and the same.
Until you under that, you won't believe it. You won't believe it until you try to understand it. However you seem to dismiss it completely.
What a fucking cunt. Read a few of my posts on this debate alone. Don't even think of debating on my level till you read what I've written.
You mean like these gems?
Yes.
Anybody who has felt at peace with God would understand His existance.
I need to get back in touch with my spiritual side. That's when I was most content with life.
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA.
If you'd understood his presence like I had you wouldn't even dare to make such ignorant statements.
It was as real as feeling the sun beat on my back. I don't see you dismiss that feeling.
In other words touchy-feely woo-woo. I really don't care to get down to your level of insults, you're no threat to me because you seem to think that on an intellectual debate "feeling" something counts as a legitimate argument. It doesn't.
I've got temporal lobe epilepsy. My hallucinations are as real as walking up to a person, shaking his hand, and having a three hour conversation with him. Quite literally.
A lot of atheists and agnostics were once very heavily involved with churches. Often they felt the same types of experiences as continued believers do. I deal on a regular basis with people who are going through crises of faith, and I can tell you that they often come from a strong religious background. I hear the same stories over and over again. Losing faith in a religion is in general a traumatic time and requires great strength and fortitude, but afterwards people often find themselves in a more content and self-confident state than they ever were beforehand.
Feeling is not necessarily actuality. If a schizophrenic came up to you and told you all about the big, purple, tentacled monster that followed you around and hid behind lampposts everytime you tried to look at it, you wouldn't believe them, even though they felt without a doubt that it was real. This is the problem with discussing faith with unbelievers. A feeling isn't enough to go on.
Hey RevKristine, I can't help but giggle when I read about your condition :)
I apologize if it's a condition you'd rather not have. I find it quite fascinating!
Anyways, back to the topic of gods. I absolutely agree with you that feelings are not actuality. I've never had a feeling that God exists, even when I'm in church or at a temple, or wherever, I wish I could have feelings like what your friend experienced at the U2 concert! So my faith in the existence of gods is then not based on any feelings at all.
The condition is quite terrifying at times. It sounds interesting, but it's really quite intrusive and means there are a lot of things I can't do.
So can you specifically tell me what your faith in the existence of gods is based on if it's not a feeling? And when I say specifically, I mean just that. I want examples which pinpoint exactly why you think the universe could not exist without the input of a god or gods?
Ok, the proof is specifically in everything around us. In the entire physical universe and all of its magical things. In the magic of cellular structures and life. EVERYTHING!!!
Truly? That's what you're arguing? That everything happened by magic?
Hate to tell you this, but magic isn't real.
And saying "everything" is not specific. It's a generalist statement. The only actual specific thing you offered me was cellular stuctures and life. Neither of which were very specific... what about cellular structure points to a God or gods? What about life points to a God or gods?
Saying "everything" in any other debate might be a generalist escape, but we're not talking about anything else are we? We're talking about the Big Guy! So the word everything is not being used lightly here.
You don't believe in magic just because you can't do magic. That's a fallacy.
Saying "everything" in this debate is a generalist escape, because you aren't actually pointing towards anything which I can actually reply to. The name of this website is "CreateDebate". When I come here, I expect to actually engage in a debate. Which means that when I ask for a specific example and you give me "everything" as a response, I'm going to get terribly frustrated, because it's an evasion.
As for magic, if I took a flashlight back 2000 years, people would think I was doing magic. Just because you don't understand how something works, that doesn't mean that it's magic, it simply means that you don't understand it.
My dear, we're talking about God, the one that created the universe or enables it to be formed. I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you because everything is how I see it. You keep explaining everything with science but you still don't grasp the concept that science is only how you explain things (this must be the 10th time I say this): Aerodynamics explain a bird's ability to move about through the air, but birds had been flying before we discover aerodynamics!!!
Oh and just because you do understand how something works and it's part of your everyday normal life doesn't mean it's not magic! The flashlight is still magic now!!! It's light for godsakes (excuse the pun), and what's more: it's light on demand! You think it ceases to be magic because you can explain it by saying that it's photons or energy particles or whatever? Not a chance! It's nothing short of magic!
You need to define magic. Because when we're not using the same definitions we're obviously going to come to a point where we lose all understanding of each others arguments.
Ok, there are many definitions of magic. So I'm gonna go ahead and define it so that it will support all of my arguments that God exists... so here goes:
Magic is what enables the creation of all things in the universe. (I reserve the right to edit this definition so that it will support God's existence).
This doesn't sound fair but we're debating the topic, so unless there's a ready-made definition out there somewhere to support the existence of God, I'm gonna have to author it myself.
Please use source material when referencing definitions. I require either a dictionary publication reference, or a dictionary website reference, and I require it to be written in the dictionary's tems, not in yours. You are using a word which has accepted definitions. I need to know the accepted definition you are using, not one that you've pulled out of the top of your head. That's what defining something is. If you wish to use a term to support your definition that doesn't match accepted definitions, you have to create your own term, not redefine existing terms.
I'm going to bundle this all into the one thread for ease of access, and this one happened to be at the top of my pile.
I think we've got to the point in this debate where your argument has turned more into some sort of desperate flailing. Time and again I have asked you to provide me with even one example of something which required a God to intervene, however you have failed to do so, falling back on “everything” as a specific. In your one attempt, you fell back onto referring explainable chemical processes as “magical”. When asked to define the usage of “magical”, rather than using an accepted dictionary definition, you decided to redefine the English language. It doesn't work that way. The word you used was "magic". You don't get to back out of that one now. You need to provide an accepted definition of your usage, or you need to accept that your argument is complete bull. Because by the same token, I could redefine “God” to “this teaspoon” and when asked how the universe was formed, I could say “This teaspoon did it”. You wouldn't accept that as a valid argument, and neither will I.
When attempting to give you an analogy to show you God's required input into this world (the formula I showed you... it's very simple, I think even a first grader could understand the maths) you attempted to find you way around it with “God made the numbers”. That wasn't the issue. The argument may have sounded pretty in your head, but it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how and when analogy is used, or how it fit into the argument. God equalled nothing. I could just as easily slot a big fat “nothing” into the universe where you say God impacts us, and everything would remain exactly the same.
I'm not here to argue that there is no God. I don't know that. I'm a minister of the Agnostic Church, I'm not here to argue for atheism, it's my job simply to spread agnosticism and to show that God is a questionable concept. What I'm arguing is that there is no way to support a claim that God exists. If nothing was needed to create God, the same can be said for the Universe. If something larger was required to create God, then we run into infinite regress, and God is not God. I have shown that. You have even in your own way agreed with me on that, by arguing that M-theory (a theory which supports multiple universes) was possibly the way that God did it, thereby placing God external to the Universe and therfore unprovable.
If at any point you can think of just one thing that specifically cannot be shown to exist without some form of supernatural force, then by all means I will listen. But you haven't been able to do that. So I can safely say that despite any further attempts from your side of the argument, I have shown your argument for Gods existence^ (i.e. something which exists, see definition for exist below) to be unsupported and unsupportable.
^exist definition
ex·ist (eg zist′, ig-)
intransitive verb
1. to have reality or actual being; be
2. to occur or be present the qualities that exist in a person
3. to continue being; live the refugees barely exist
Etymology: Fr exister < L existere, exsistere, to come forth, stand forth < ex-, out + sistere, to cause to stand, set, place, caus. of stare, stand
I'm going to answer this with separate posts, since it makes it easier to rebut the separate points.
You really don't need to go summarizing things and then taking snippets of arguments here and there to completely distort the truth about my arguments with labels such as "desperate flailing". Any independent intelligent mind here would see through all that and know that my arguments are logically sound.
Essentially, God is the creator of everything and if you keep insisting on specifics, then you're simply being belligerent about it. Go look up the definition of everything.
Now, you describe childbirth as simply an astounding chemical process but I find everything about this chemical process extraordinarily powerful. Call me a simpleton if you like, but understanding all the sciences in the world doesn't make them less extraordinary or powerful (magical).
By the way, if you said as a rule that God = this spoon, then I'd be fine with that and allow you to use the term “this spoon” wherever you want to replace the word “God”.
Exist? We've already established that something which can't be met or seen can exist. The dictionary includes the spiritual level as well, but I don't even need to explore that!
Supernatural? The word actually doesn't argue for your side at all, so you shouldn't actually use it. I wasn't using it to argue for my side. I was using it to suggest that if you could come up with explanations, I would be happy to listen. This will be my last post to you. I have come to the conclusion that you must suffer from some form of retardation, as you seem unable to understand sentences.
I know you weren't using it to argue for your side. You were using it in a sentence to discredit God's existence. I understood more than your sentence, I understood your meaning. Here's your sentence in full:
"If at any point you can think of just one thing that specifically cannot be shown to exist without some form of supernatural force, then by all means I will listen" - Supernatural by definition involves ghosts or gods. You're actually saying to me that you won't listen to anything that can be done by forces of ghosts or gods. That's you accidentally saying God exists...
Please, it's quite tedious for me to have to explain myself like this every time.
you call yourself an agnostic? I think atheist sounds more likely, I've looked up both terms in the Merriam-Webster and under agnostic were 2 definitions, both of which says that you're not supposed to be committed to the existence or non-existence of God. That's not you! Agnostic people by definition shouldn't even be here on this debate topic, where you actually have to commit to Existence or Non-existence! I really wanna see you get out of this one!
A number of places during this debate I've mentioned that fact. I have a direct link to my church on my profile. The Rev in my name is not just there for show. I am an ordained minister in the Universal Church Triumphant for the Apathetic Agnostic. I've not made a secret of it.
Agnostic is actually compatible with atheist, even though there are numerous misinformed people who think otherwise. Agnostic is a philosophical stance, whereas atheist is a religious one. I can lack faith in a god at the same time as I say it is impossible to know. And I was showing the heart of the agnostic stance, I never once attempted to prove that god did not exist, I simply sought to show that the existence of god was not possible to support empirically.
My stance is "no" because my default stance is that there is no valid evidence for a god. Unicorns and faries may exist, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence. I default to a "no" on those also. None of this negates my agnosticism.
Before you take up another one of these types of debates, I suggest you do a crash course in philosophy and critical thinking. You need it. When you attempt to argue theism, there are some arguments that you need to learn how to counter in a rational way.
You also need to solidify your own beliefs in order to present them in any meaningful way. At the moment you seem to have some form of monolatrism, pandeism or panendeism that you believe, but you don't seem to be very clear on what that entails. You claim to have no reason for believing what you believe, and you follow no pre-set religion that I can discern. From what little I could glean of your faith, you believe all gods to be real, but the one you follow is the sole precedent of them all. This brings a couple of questions to my mind. If there can be many gods, why is there/can there be only one precedent? And if your god saw fit to implement middle management, why do you feel the right to go around them to the head of the corporation? Don't you think he/she/it has better things to do with his/her/its time than deal with something as microscopic as you?
Ok, there's a few funny facts about your church that I'd like to point out:
1 - Church by definition is for religious people (all the definitions of church points to religion or religious, which means faith is required), but since agnosticism is not a religious stance, why are you called a church? Shouldn't you call your organization a club, association, committee, union or guild??? I quite like the word guild :)
2 - Your church's article of faith #2 says that if there's a god, that god seems to be indifferent to the universe and its inhabitants. How do you know that? Especially if you believe there's no evidence God cares or not!
3 - Apathetic means having/showing little or no interest/emotions. Besides making your faith (sorry should I not use the word faith?) quite a boring one, I find that to be contradictory to your involvement. I mean you should be called the minister for the passionate agnostics :)
Your involvement in this debate topic is still not justified because Agnosticism is all about "lack of conclusive measurable evidence" and this topic is not "Is there any conclusive measurable evidence that God exists?" If it was, you'd be arguing for the Negative side.
"either everything came from nothing, or everything came from something.
nothingness cannot produce anything, ever, so the only option left is that SOMETHING must have always existed, and caused or created everything else"
About why God would wanna deal with microscopic me? He doesn't. I don't need him to. Although, if he's created aliens I'd like for him to consider maybe allowing us to cross path with them soon... it'd be kinda cool :)
M-theory? God created everything that damned theory is based on. Infinite regress of beings that made beings that made beings? So what? God exists, infinitely or not!
The supporting evidence is in everything as we know it. Everything as we know it is the evidence that inferred the existence of God. The amazingness of it all.
I feel like I'm debating with a child, not a minister of a church of the Apathetic Agnostic (initially I thought it was your FLE talking, but clicking on the website it appears that you weren't lying).
I could argue infinity doesn't exist, only constant expansion in every direction (both time and space)
But each point within any dimension is a definite point, and that there are limitless points doesn't make them infinite points, or all points within the limitless points would themselves have to be infinite - which is self-contradicting and thus impossible.
But exlaining that would take two semesters and half the class would fail anyway.
Oh it just occurred to me that you CAN do magic. When you conceive and have children, that's nothing short of magical. You may just dismiss it as simply science, but in fact science is only how humans explain it, it is magical how the chromosomes of eggs and sperms combine to result in 1 being.
Magical how? Basically, it comes down to a series of chemical reactions. I don't understand where the magic comes into it. If you can pinpoint for me the precise point at which there's magic, that would be great. Get as technical as you like, I've done university biology, so I'll be able to follow along.
The whole thing! The entire chemical process! E v e r y s i n g l e scientifically explanable moment and all the elements in it... I suppose now I'm gonna have to define magic to you so just refer to the post above where I do.
My religious experience is incomprehensible. Just as each other persons is. People tend to forget God in developed countries. Go to 'developing' countries and see how many of them are having religious crisis. The peace and calm I have felt when my faith in God was the strongest cannot be achieved in any other way. It's not a feeling more than it is a state of mind. Tranquility, inner peace and a strength I cannot understand. Who knows - maybe it's because I don't follow organised religion....
Do you know what heat intolerance is? look it up. feelings do not prove the existence of Gods, and arguments stating the opposite, clearly illustrate insufficient reason for belief in the supernatural, or anything 'god-like'.
No one disputes whether or not we as human beings 'feel', but ppl dont worship feelings.
The issue is 'Do Gods Exist'. Not 'Do human beings 'feel'. Silly emotion based arguments are little more than equivocation.
God is no silly dillusion! Thank you but most of us agree with the fact that God exsists. Look up your information if your so smart. This is a debate if you can't fricken tell. I disagree with your ignorant statements.
Humans also make mistakes. We aren't the only species to make mistakes, yet we are the only species that illustrates false hopes in the medium of religion...
->then we had better leave out the above, because he falls into a different category
->since we can prove his existence, observe his actions, and experience his love
Sorry, but your god isn't special. Talk to the Muslims, Hindus, Sheiks, and so on who all feel their gods' love, and can "prove" its existence.
All religions claim to have a powerful truth, claim to offer proof. All religions come up short when their claims about the nature of the universe are tested scientifically. One can reasonably infer that if a religion makes false claims, it is probably man made with no god.
yes there may be no proof but yes w must ask our selves why does it rain a person who says god is not real would be quiet stupid to think so.then we ask them are you religious
I am not religious or anything but I still like to think god exists. We can see god as someone that we should be. We should be kind like god, we should care for others like god. I think that is what god's meaning is.
Although, people say that we can not see, touch, taste, smell, hear god but if we say that, can we see your brain, touch your brain, taste your brain, smell your brain, hear your brain? We can't, unless you have some kind of surgery. And I definitely would not see how a surgery is done so I have never seen anyone's brain. I think it's the same as that.
..we should kill the population of the world when we get irritated like God, we should play with people for our personal amusement like God, we should slaughter children to send a message to political leaders who are doing things we don't like like God... oh, wait. I'm sensing a problem with this "we should be like God" idea.
There is no proof either way. I belive the description of god disapearing in The Hitchhikers trilogy (cant remember which one of the books) shows the falicy of this arguement. Personally I belive yes god excists. But I haveno proof. However the other side of the arguement has no proof that god does not excist. So really it is just a debate over what people belive. No one has proof.
No proof, other than the complete absence of proof of his existence. But why do you believe in a God you wouldn't know about if your parents had not told of it? Just think about the credibility of his existence for ten minutes, without using the old 'faith' umbrella.
In the times before communicating with each other could be done as easily as it can be done today, people all over the planet believed in a higher power that created the universe. They independently feel this. There was noone from Africa telling anyone else in Europe or Australia about a god... People still wonder about that higher power today. It's called belief in God and it's not because of anything my mother told me.
Considering that in those days people worshiped the sun and believed the Earth was flat, they can be forgiven for their ignorance. They did not feel a higher power, they just had no way to explain their own existence. If you feel a higher power, then I am of the opinion that you should be locked away in a dark, damp place.
Countless number of people have claimed that they've felt a higher power, yet you say They did not feel a higher power. I mean there're people reporting alien abductions and stuff as we speak. So don't tell me how people feel. If they want to feel something, they feel it. I've never felt a higher power, but if i did and you want to lock me in a dark, damp place, I'd say I'm glad your Nazi era is over!
If the Greek Gods are so ludicrous then what makes your God any different?
Besides, the story of Adam and Eve, with the breathing of life into clay, is actually stolen from the Greek story of prometheus' Children. So, essentially you have unwittingly discredited the Bible.
Stolen? So you caught the thief and he confessed? What ever buddy. Did Alfred Wallace steal the theory of Natural Selection from Charles Darwin? Coincidences aren't always the result of foul play.
This story seems very similar to that of the creation of Adam. If the Greek version of this is so ridiculous and false, then why isn't the Christian version?
Coincidences aren't always the result of foul play.
A common quote is that 'God does not believe in coincidences'.
This story is simplified for children, but it makes the clay point very early.
How is this proof in any way? You haven't determined the snake's motivation. First I'd like to see an article confirming this, then I'd like to see proof of causation.
But I had skipped a step in logic. Saying that one thing proves one religion to be true (the snake thing or whatever Rock was saying) then using as proof that another religion says this could not be proof because snake's are not sacred.
Naturally proves that either one or the other of the two religions are completely wrong.
In my mind that significantly increases the odds that no religion knows what it is talking about, with them all yapping on about whether a snake/cow/dude being tortured on a cross or what have you is or is not "sacred."
So yeah, I skipped a step in logic. My apologies.
That said though. Again, how quickly you dismiss another religion should give you some inisight as to how an atheist feels about whichever (because it does not matter) god you believe in.
Like, if you can dismiss that religions that so many people feel so strongly about, what makes you think yours could not be just as easily dismissed by another?
My God created all the other gods, there's like a hierachy of gods and my god just happens to be at the top of the chart. His real name is ......... I can't even write it or pronounce it because it's not within the human abilities to, so I'm gonna just say that I humanly refer to him as Helluvagaai. But yeah, all the other gods exist, but Helluvagaai, he's the top chop!!!
And why does He have to exist? And stop saying that the "perfect" universe is proof of Him, we can explain the universe with the big expansion. Why is there a need for a god when we can explain how the universe came to be?
Didn't you know God enabled the Big Bang? Well, consider yourself informed. You could have figured it out on your own, but I guess that's the problem with using science and maths... they're terribly limiting, although apparently they've theorized that dimensions exist that can't be sensed using human senses... I guess that's only a start though, but that alone kinda says to me that God exists, you just may never be able to sense him/her/it.
The big expansion theory works just fine without a god. Science is the best tool that you can use to get information of the world because it looks at the actual facts. If you start off with telling yourself that there is a god then you have already limited yourself extremely because then you have to reject all the facts that contradict the existence of god. I have asked you again and again why we need to add god when we don't see any proof for him at all, I don't seem to get an answer from you.
That's because you have "limited" yourself in believing that Evolution and Creation are 2 mutually exclusive theories. Look at Theistic Evolution on Wikipedia.org
If you wanna see a cool powerpoint presentation come here for some logical reasoning:
I believed in both evolution and creation from when i was 6 years old but that doesn't work because then i have to change both the bible and the scientific theories and that is immoral.
So now you're saying that because there are so many religions - none of them are true?
I believe my religion is right. Others choose to believe there's is right. I don't actually have a problem with that. My problem comes when religions (especially Christianity and Islam) spend time and effort to convert others.
I prefer the fact that people are religious rather than not religious. Hinduism advocates worship over non-worship. When you look at all religions closely, you can see that they all talk about the same thing. How they are followed however is another matter entirely.
so you wont even bother with consideration for the existence of a god, outside of that which is written in the bible? no other article of faith or religious claim could possibly hold any validity? why not subject all religious claims to the same rigors of scrutiny? that would at least be a step towards intellectual honesty.
Yeah only one God is real if you real the bible that is all you need to know that he is real because he created the world if you are a Christian and if you don't believe what I am saying just keep listing to other mens theory's. ..................................................................................................
Of course it wouldn't, that's ridiculous. You didn't throw it away or eat it did you? It by itself wouldn't cure cancer, but it and the potato chip I have shaped as the Virgin Mary may well have cured cancer.
So you are saying that the bright white light that I see sometimes when I'm having a seizure actually exists? And the dog that attacks me sometimes when I'm about to have a seizure actually exists? And the dark shape that follows me for hours before my seizures actually exists? These things are hallucinations caused by an acquired brain injury which caused me to have temporal lobe epilepsy.
If the house in front of us is not a hallucination, it has mass. It is verifiable by scientific means, therefore it exists.
The drum beat is caused by the vibrations of atoms. It is verifiable by scientific means, therefore it exists.
The rock that hits our head has mass and is verifiable. The pain is NOT verifiable. It is subjective. I'm not saying that the pain is not real, I am simply saying that it is an individual thing. A friend of mine has no nerve endings in the palms of his hands, as a child he was playing with blasting caps and one exploded. His hands were saved, and now he pulls roasts out of the oven barehanded as a party trick. The pain is dependant upon nerve endings, which in his case, don't exist.
The sweetness of an apple is determined by its sugar content, and receptors on the tongue and in the back of the nose. The apple exists, the sugar content exists, the taste of the sweetness is subjective.
The burning steak on the bbq exists, the esters it releases into the air while it is cooking hit those same receptors as for taste mentioned above. The esters exist, the smell is subjective.
Things that exist in our imaginations are purely subjective. When they are generational, it is because they have been passed down orally or within writing. Thus people sometimes believe things that cannot be shown to exist simply because they don't question those things that they've been told.
If people say that Gods exist and that Gods create the universe, a definition of "Gods" must be possible and should be provided. If it can later be shown that something other than what was described as "God" or "Gods" created the universe, and if that function was crucial within the description of "God" or "Gods", then the existance of said thing can be shown to be fallacious.
RevKristine, If your having seizures, then your possessed by the devil. If the devil exist so does God. This sounds like nothing a good preist couldn't fix.
Ok if you had followed all of the arguments below that one, you'd have seen that I argue for the physical definition of existence as well as the subjective imagined definition of existence. This is because the debate creator had left it wide open for defining :)
That sounds like an evil god that first says that you will go to hell/be stuck in an eternal wheel of reincarnation if you don't believe in me and then not define himself or show any proof of his existence.
This means that unless there is evidence to prove the non-existence of something, anything could technically exist! Unicorns, magic, even things despised by people like yourself, it all exists.
Ok, I guess I haven't made myself clear yet. The debate creator has given debaters the freedom to define existence. So what I've actually covered is most forms of existence, not just the physical forms.
A rock exists in real physical form.
Electricity exists in the work it performs.
Fairies exist in the minds of people.
Gods exist in many forms to many different people, so Gods exist.
Ahem. Electricity is electrons moving from one atom in a current to another. It is physical. And no one has seen a fairy, nor have they seen a God. They might see something that the fairy did, but can that prove the fairy was real? Same thing with gods. Humankind yearns for explanations to things, science and religion both express it in different forms. Religions if just wrong :)
I find the opposite to be true. In fact I think you'll find that nearly every religion on Earth, and especially the popular ones, are based on and founded on people who claim to have first hand knowledge of a god. Indeed, preachers are always spewing about god telling them this and that even today.
Not that it matters, people would find an excuse to believe in a god I believe, whether some person claimed to have seen one or not.
I believe if anything this would make it more likely an electron exists than that a god exists. Since as you said an electron is inferred from consequence by those honest enough to admit they had never actually seen one...
but that's not so useful I guess to the overall debate.
Our knowledge of god is the supposition of abstract attributes.
1) Eternal
2) Intelligent
3) Power
4) Love
5) Hate
6) Mercy
7) Compassion
8) Judgment
9) Fatherhood
10) First Creator
11) Just
12) Righteous
13) Etc.,
Since our knowledge of god is the suppositional imputation of abstract attributes, no man can know he has seen god; for abstract qualities are not visible.
So, when men claim they have seen god, I immediately reason that they have most assuredly seen something that is not god, and hence they are not claiming to have seen god, but rather are claiming that god can be seen.
(Oh, they are seeing something alright, but I know they are not claiming to see what is not visible.)
Consider these thoughts as an illustration of the impossible.
Some men claim they have seen dark matter.
Some men claim they have seen dark energy.
We know dark matter and energy are not visible. Thusly, any man who claims he has seen either is telling us he has seen that which is not visible, and hence he is claiming he has seen something other than.
Now, would you agree that no man claims to have seen dark matter or energy despite his testimony?
(I should have explained the justification of my assertion: “No man claims to have seen god.”)
That's why I like arguing with you. You actually come up with reasons instead of feelings.
I believe you're giving many people who claim to have seen god a bit too much credit. Ignoring charlatans though, I'm sure there are many who believe they have seen/felt/heard some type of god, and believe this because of some abstract attribute. That or they were hallucinating of course, I'll even ignore the hallucinations though for this argument.
Same with dark matter kind of. So I would say that one who says they had seen it, it would of course not have been the physical presence, maybe they think they saw it, but I know they did not. Since dark matter is proved to exist, and we even use it in CT scans, I believe it exists. Even though I can't see it. So whether one claims to have seen it makes no difference in its existence one way or another, I just think that person was seeing things.
This doesn't really address though the god issue. Because people claim to have seen this unseen stuff we know to exist but is actually invisible, does not necessarily mean that anything which is actually invisible but that people have claimed to have sensed in some matter must therefore also exist. It's a moot point. There's nothing to be gained by that line of debate on either side because unlike dark matter or dark energy, there is no equation in which it becomes essential, there is no advanced hospital equipment that we actually make use of god in.
Of course the faithful can cite prayer. But prayer doesn't produce a detailed chart of the human brain when you stick someone's head in some kind of prayer machine. If they come up with that machine that uses prayer to scan the brain, I'll have no choice but to admit whatever being prayed to exists in some form. That though is not the case.
So while the point is taken. It doesn't lead to god being any more or less likely than prior.
Okay, so I love the first part of your argument.
Am I wrong in assuming that your view is that since the listed things are attributes one associates with god, then it is not god itself observed, but these things that suppose some beings existence called god? If so, very good. This makes sense and is virtually impossible to disprove.
All I can say is that in my opinion each of these attributes are qualities of human beings.
And that this definition of god is simply a wishful exaggeration of what we hope to be. We imagine eternal essentially because we wish to not cease to exist, and so we attribute this. All of these subjective qualities certainly come from somewhere, we know they exist because we can define them as subjective as they are, and we have a general universal agreement of what they are.
By the same token, one can make god to be a subjective thing. In this case all subjective things. But like love or hate, they cannot be proved. Are love and hate real? Sure, as long as some intelligent thing feels it, it is, it is descriptive and so must be.
However, I think we both know that your argument of "god" is not by any stretch even close to what any other theologian is arguing in this debate.
Hey, I need one day to determine how I should respond to your argument, and then I’ll need one or two more days to pen (the computer equivalent) an argument that is worthy of your consideration. Here are some reasons for the delay:
1) I agree with your some of your judgments.
2) I agree with some of your logic.
3) I think your understanding is rare.
4) Compliments are warranted.
5) Complements are necessary.
6) I am elated by your acuity of properly understanding my assertions.
7) You correctly identified that which I knew should be inferred.
8) And quite simply stated, I am impressed more by what I think you are correct on than I am compelled to dispute what I think you err concerning.
9) I wish the list ended at 8.
The point is, I want this discussion to serve as an example of iron sharpening iron (both are effective).
(It is times like these I truly despise the encumbrance of on-line mediums; a one hour vis-a-vis conversation betwixt us would be much more efficient.)
That's why I like arguing with you. You actually come up with reasons instead of feelings.
Ditto!
Actually, I did not argue for or against the existence of God. I simply argued that a God which has those attributes cannot be seen by man. Consequently, any claim predicated upon sight is untenable; meaning, no man can affirm god does not exist because he has not seen God, and no man can affirm God exists because he has seen him.
(I invalidated both arguments for and against God’s existence which are predicated upon sight or the absence thereof.)
BTW, we cannot prove the existence of God, but we can expose invalid argument for and against God’s existence. And yet the fact remains that we have only invalidated an argument; consequently, the truth or falsity of the root premises can’t be proven
Axiom: God’s existence or absence of existence is not demonstrated by argument.
I will offer this though:
Both of us can be thoroughly convinced that our positions are true to fact. And yet there is no evidence to prove the truth of our views.
“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”—Carl Sagan concerning E.T.
I respect your opinion because your position is as precarious as mine. But one of us is correct; it is just a sad reality we can’t prove the truth or falsity of our premises.
Ok, so "science and religion both express it in different forms" and just because you say "religions are just wrong" makes religions... wrong? Surely that's the biggest fallacy of all fallacies? Perhaps lawnman will argue with me on that last statement...
claiming that something exists, doesnt bring that thing into existence. it's existence must be demonstrated with evidence or the default is to assume it is nonexistent. ontological arguments for existence fail. ppl once said the earth was flat, and that diseases were caused by demons. these claims are obviously false. if we imagine something, it does not mean the thing exists. concepts exist, but no concept is said to have talked the universe into existence. you should really think over your arguments before you make them and try to be objective.
I say its all happening at once...but so that we can not see it in it real state ...like i mean some stuff has already happen and when he thinks its good for us to remember then it happens ...but its really in the past ....
You're not really debating whether god exist, more like a perception of reality or what reality is. In that case, several things may exist that don't exist now like Harry Potter is a real wizard, there are really 21 continents all the size of Hawaii and God actually exists.
ONE God exists for sure. BUT, there are no other GOds. My precious Heavenly Father is soooo real and has changed my life. I am on this earth to serve HIM. All other gods such as Allah, Budda, and every thing else is just a chunk of metal or gold or whatever it is. They can't think talk, incourage, Love, punish or anything. MY God is deferent. He is all of those. He lives and HE lives in my heart.
How do you know your God is a he? Last I heard a "spirit" does not have a physical body... And if we are all created in Gods image, wouldn't that make god both a man and a woman??
prove it trololol. buddha aint a god he's a prophet buddhists don't believe in a god. allah and "your god" are prreee much the same so what makes allah scrap.
To say that something other than God created us is absurd. Things like DNA and fingerprints prove this. Do any experiment and see how many different results are obtained. To have every human being different can not happen by random acts of nature. It has to be carefully planned. Proof of a higher power is the fact that all humans are not clones, but rather unique.
How can you speak of DNA and then say that uniqueness is impossible without a God? The experiments done on DNA prove the exact opposite of your argument. You would know that if you had actually bothered to research your argument.
You found a TV, you brought it home and you learned how it operates and perhaps you even know how to make now, but that doesn't make the manufacturer of that original TV non-existent. You can't say this is how DNA works and then say that it proves there's no creator! That's just stupid! God created the DNA and its structures and the rules with which it operates.
Saying that God did something does not mean he did. That is why we are having this debate. Statements are not arguments, so why do you use them as though they are.
If God created DNA, why is it not mentioned in the Bible, a book that supposedly contains the path to knowledge of our existence?
For that matter, why does the Bible frequently contradict itself?
Why is there no knowledge inside it that was not discovered by humans first?
Why do you need a God to live a normal life?
I didn't say that DNA disproves the existence of a God, I merely refuted the claim that it proves it, and I quote: 'To say that something other than God created us is absurd. Things like DNA and fingerprints prove this.'
Your own 'that's just stupid' argument works both ways.
Saying that God did something, means he did it (to me). Statements are arguments. If I make a statement or claim, that's an argument, and you'll have to refute it in a debate. That's what a debate is.
My belief in God doesn't mean I'm restricted to the Bible. Sure it's a guide, but it ain't a manual for my entire life. So no, the Bible doesn't have God's creation recipe, otherwise we wouldn't have this debate!
Why do I need a God to live a normal life?
I don't. I choose to belief. Like many other things about a normal life, choice is what we always have (except in countries where the government ban that specific choice cos they're just stupid).
I'm gonna quote you about the DNA stuff:
How can you speak of DNA and then say that uniqueness is impossible without a God? The experiments done on DNA prove the exact opposite of your argument.
That's you saying you've studied the TV's inner workings and declare that it's possible that the TV manufactured itself.
""To say that something other than God created us is absurd. Things like DNA and fingerprints prove this. Do any experiment and see how many different results are obtained. To have every human being different can not happen by random acts of nature. It has to be carefully planned. Proof of a higher power is the fact that all humans are not clones, but rather unique.""
The reason we tend towards difference is not because of careful planning at all. Do you realise how many traits you have? Thousands that just express themselves as phenotypes like hair colour, skin type, etc. Then take into account the number of different variations of traits there are, and the random sorting of traits caused by reproduction, and the fact that we all mutate each time we reproduce. It's little wonder that we almost never find unrelated twins.
Our traits, our DNA isn't even engineered. We can do experiments that demonstrate this. Sorry but you're just wrong in every way. If we were created one should expect conformity, like we came from a factory.
i always give proof after my argument and i would say that if there was no god or super natural power the reasons to live for or give meaning to life would be savage or few while those who belive in god see the future of the world in peace,happines and other thinks..
i gues that if there was no evidence of super natural power neither you or me should have been able to control the savagery of the world..
you claim that those who believe in a god see the future of the world in peace. havent you ever heard of the rapture or revelation? an apocalypse is not any rational or peace loving man's idea of peace. it is the utter destruction of the world and all we know. this is what abrahamic faith instills in its subscribers. this is belief in a god. so is the belief that 99% of the ppl who have lived or will ever live, will burn in a lake of fire for eternity. this does not instill anyone with peace. only fear.
Ok tell me this if god didn't exist what set off the big bang, what made suns, galaxies, different forces that build a structured universe that follows rules, who set those rules? it can only be god, and if I'm wrong and everything was just a quiescence and after death everything is just black and surrounded by darkness, i think id rather die have faith in that through my life if i have followed a lie but Ive done good things then death doesn't seem all that bad. at any rate knowing that there life after death is hope for all man kind that shouldn't really be turned down, but i think that god does exist because the universe is to big to be one big coincidence.
I believe in one god and if people say "wheres the proof that there's a god" i am going to make another point which is "wheres the proof that there isnt"
The burden of proof is on the believer. Can you disprove that I have a dragon in my bedroom? If I made such an absurd claim would you blindly accept it as true without using some sort of logic or reasoning?
I believe in one god
If I was to say with a straight face that I believe in fairies, everyone would think I was insane. I would have no real friends, wouldn't get a proper job, would never be taken seriously. For some reason though, it is socially acceptable for you to believe in your invisible friend.
Isn't it convenient that you believe in the exact same god that you were brought up to believe in? The exact same one your family believe in? The exact same one you were taught about in school? The one they spoke about at your church? What are the odds!!? Out of the thousands of gods who have been revered around the world by thousands of cultures over thousands of years...it just so happens that the god of your time, and your community is true! Turns out (with no additional knowledge or anything else to go by) that Zeus wasn't true, neither was Vishnu or Tenrikyo or Allah or Agdistis or Ah Puch or Ahura Mazda or Alberich or Amaterasu or An or Anansi or Anat or Andvari or Anshar or Anu or Aphrodite or Apollo or Apsu or Ares or Artemis or Asclepius or Athena or Athirat or Athtart or Atlas. What a stroke of luck for you!?
That is a video that plays with words and disregards its own assertions over time, space and matter.
The first argument:
Nothing created everything (impossible)
or
Something ALWAYS existed and created everything that is created.
If this 'Something' exists outside of of Time, Matter and Space then it does not exist. Matter and Space are essential to existence.
If time cannot be infinite, then nothing can, because time cannot be escaped. If God has existed forever and will always exist, then time must be infinite. However, the video has proved that it is not, so therefore God cannot be eternal, because eternity is impossible if you exist outside of time. The argument also falls down on the creation idea. If god exists without time, then it does not mean He is eternal, it posits that He has never been, because he has had no time to be in.
Or, if the physical restrictions and the 'something' are extant, then I submit an alternate theory to that of a sentient God.
I say a something exists outside T,M and S. (Sentience is not necessary, as this is physics).
1. It has had no time to be, and has no time to be eternal either. To be eternal requires infinite time, which is does not exist. If you exist outside time, then you do not exist at all.
2. It has no matter. By definition then, it must either be energy or nothing. Energy moves to, or becomes matter.
3. If there is no space to be in, and this is before space was created, then we must assume this energy is all there is.
4. We must now put aside the 'outside time' part for this energy to exist at all.
5. So, all of the universe exists as this energy, which has no space around it, but must have an area of space equal to it's volume, so it is space.
6. Energy can become mass in a number of ways, including under heat and pressure. As the energy exists without a medium , it must be radiation: heat energy. Having all the universe's energy in such an 'infinitely' small space would create pressure (theoretically, anyway). This would convert energy to matter.
7. Matter has more volume than energy , so expansion is required. Do you recognize what this is leading up to yet?
8. Every molecule in the universe being created at once would result in a very, very fast expansion. In fact, this during this expansion, we witness the creation of Time, Space and Matter.
So there you have it. The Big Bang, completely God free, and operating (mostly) within the physical restrictions laid out by the video. If you want to worship this energy as a deity then go ahead, but I doubt it would care.
Christ (ha ha), I'm going to bed. I look forward to your inevitable, but nevertheless welcomed refutation.
..eternity is impossible if you exist outside of time
What do you mean? Eternity is a timeless value. Its very definition is outside of time. It's not a very long time, or even a very very very long time. It's timeless.
So there you have it. The Big Bang, completely God free, and operating (mostly) within the physical restrictions laid out by the video.
Ok, nice. Energy, where did that come from? Oh, it must have always existed for your theory to be "ok", but time is not infinite, so oops! I dunno dude, if you can actually disprove God's existence, you'd probably win some sort of World Science Award or something... the whole world actually wants to know ;)
Ok, so you establish basic rules for the universe, and the only way you can support your God delusion is to completely disregard them. Without matter one must be energy, but without space one simply has no place to be, and therefore cannot be. If something exists outside of space, matter and time then it is logical to conclude that it has no power over space, matter or time. That runs contrary to the assertion that God has power over everything.
What do you mean? Eternity is a timeless value. Its very definition is outside of time. It's not a very long time, or even a very very very long time. It's timeless.
No, eternity is all time so therefore cannot be attributed to anything outside time. Luckily, nothing exists outside time, as time is a universal constant. If something does exist outside time, then it simply cannot be eternal, as it has never had any time to exist. You cannot have everything of something that you don't have.
Ok, nice. Energy, where did that come from? Oh, it must have always existed for your theory to be "ok", but time is not infinite, so oops! I dunno dude, if you can actually disprove God's existence, you'd probably win some sort of World Science Award or something... the whole world actually wants to know ;)
Actually, if you read my whole argument, you would have seen that the entire theory operates under the video's assertion that something had to have always existed ('Or, if the physical restrictions and the 'something' are extant, then I submit an alternate theory to that of a sentient God.') . I don't like that part either, but I was operating under the logic of the video. My point was that the 'something' does not have to be a sentient God.
Ok, so you establish basic rules for the universe, and the only way you can support your God delusion is to completely disregard them.
It's called not being bound by the rules of the things that you created.
Without matter one must be energy, but without space one simply has no place to be, and therefore cannot be.
These are human rules! They apply to the physical universe we inhabit! They don't apply to the Almighty.
If something exists outside of space, matter and time then it is logical to conclude that it has no power over space, matter or time. That runs contrary to the assertion that God has power over everything.
Really? I can also logically conclude that if something exists outside of space, matter and time then it is logical that it must have created S, M & T. That's what I've been trying to tell you the whole time.
It's called not being bound by the rules of the things that you created.
I know what it's called, but it is still just a desperate way of making God's existence seem inarguable.
These are human rules! They apply to the physical universe we inhabit! They don't apply to the Almighty.
If something is not physical or energetic, then it does not exist in any sense of the word.
Really? I can also logically conclude that if something exists outside of space, matter and time then it is logical that it must have created it. That's what I've been trying to tell you the whole time.
No, that isn't logical at all. Besides, the idea of creating energy is impossible. Creating it breaks the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If God does exist he can't create energy. Even if he exists outside S, M and T, because the energy created would be subject to that law, and thus could not have been created. What you have there is a paradox. If you end up with a paradox then either your information is wrong (which I have checked, and it isn't) or your suggestion is impossible. Is that proof enough for you?
it is still just a desperate way of making God's existence seem inarguable
It's not desperate at all, i reckon it's pretty solid :)
If something is not physical or energetic, then it does not exist in any sense of the word
Right, but I still think God exists and say that your logic is nonsense :)
I think if it's possible we should have a WWF wrestling match for this debate. It'll be awesome to take issues such as this (can't be proved or disproved) and dress up the wrestlers appropriately according to the side they represent, then have them fight it out. The side that wins the match, wins the debate!
the idea of creating energy is impossible. Creating it breaks the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed
Dude, you keep giving me the laws that govern our humanly universe and say that the Creator has to abide by these laws... that's just stubborn.
"... just a desperate way of making God's existence seem inarguable."
No... desperate is when you believe for the sake of hope. The concept of God's existence acting over our own isn't illogical, nor is it desperate, it is actually a solid argument that makes God's existence seem highly possible. I state "highly possible" and not "inarguable" because you have clearly argued against it, therefore it is not inarguable.
People like you want to believe that everything is a coincidence, that everything physical exists based on previous physical matter and that everything happens based on what happened before it. I don't believe in a God for "hope," I believe because I feel that everything wasn't, isn't, and won't be just a coincidence.
"If something is not physical or energetic, then it does not exist in any sense of the word."
I thought that NVYN just proved you wrong in the previous post? You seem more desperate that most other people here, just in getting your point across. One thing that you fail to understand is that existence didn't just happen! Energy doesn't just suddenly appear based on nothing!!! Something needs to happen for something else to happen!!!!! So, if physical matter and energy didn't just spring up out of nowhere, then where did it come from? Hmmm... it couldn't be other forms of physical matter or energy, because that would just go on forever in an endless riddle of confusion. So... that would mean that something that exists outside of physicality and that isn't a form of energy, wouldn't it? Well, "the Almighty" seems to fit that slot quite well doesn't he?
"desperate is when you believe for the sake of hope."#
Believing for the sake of hope perfectly describes belief in God. Therefore such beliefs can be described as desperate.
"People like you want to believe that everything is a coincidence"
I see no coincidence, I don't believe the universe was created, so my believes do not facilitate a coincidental occurrence with the universe's creation.
" One thing that you fail to understand is that existence didn't just happen!"
Consider this:
We have established that time began along with the universe.
Therefore the universe has existed for all time.
Therefore, having always existed, the universe could not have been created.
You say that existence without creation is impossible, but then go on to state that everything was created by a God who always existed, without being created.
You use "logic" to refute my arguments, but then ignore that logic in your own arguments.
Besides, energy can neither be created nor destroyed (inarguable), so the idea of something creating energy is impossible. Saying that somebody created energy is like saying that somebody created a cubic sphere, in that the object's existence defies its own existence by breaking a law that defines what it is.
"Believing for the sake of hope perfectly describes belief in God."
Okay, I'm going to take a punt and say that you're an atheist, but that doesn't matter, what matters is that you obviously do not care for religious beliefs and how varied the reasons for believing in religions are. It is undoubtedly obvious that some people do believe in God for the sake of hope, but the rest of us, who share the belief in God, hold this belief for different reasons. If you believed in God, why would you want to? This is an example question to find the answer to why individual or grouped people may want to or do believe in God. Faith is one answer, logic is the other.
In your point of view God is an illogical concept, and yet, the only proof you suggest is that time and space were created simultaneously. Here's the flaw:
"We have established that time began along with the universe. Therefore the universe has existed for all time. Therefore, having always existed..."
That opening part of the third sentence is the key flaw in your argument. You have suggested that time is a finite thing, as you used the word "began" in sentence one. Therefore, if time "began" along with the universe, then that means that space (the universe) is also finite. Therefore, here's the question: where did it come from? Surely it didn't just spring up out of nowhere did it? So, here's the big one, if the laws of science in terms of energy suggest that energy cannot be created, nor can it be destroyed, then it isn't possible for the creation of time and space to "just happen." God is a perfectly logical explanation for this creation, as he would naturally have to exist outside the laws of time and space, hence, he has existed for all time, and he is everywhere (in a matter of speaking).
Hopefully you get the clear message that I agree with the logic of energy, but I refute the fact that it simply "began," because of the simple question of: how did it begin? Answer me that using the laws of science.
So you demand that scientific laws are used to support an argument, but then completely disregard them in order to make your delusions seem reasonable. Nothing is outside the laws of science, which is why these laws give us television, the internet, motor vehicles etc, whilst religion brings nothing but conflict, murder and social repression.
'In your point of view God is an illogical concept, and yet, the only proof you suggest is that time and space were created simultaneously.'
My theory is solid, because if time began along with the universe, then the universe has existed for all time, therefore it can be said that the universe has always existed, as there was no time in which it did not.
Besides, your argument does not support a God. A God is an omniscient, perfect and omnipotent being. Your argument merely posits a form of non-dimensional energy. As the big bang theory suggests that the universe began with infinite energy without space, you seem to be arguing in favor of that. I doubt this is your intention, so perhaps you are merely ignorant of the fact that the two theories are the same.
Also, in your last paragraph, you refute the fact that the universe 'began'. I don't quite understand what you mean. If you do not believe in a beginning, then you must agree with my assertions that the universe has always existed. You clearly do not, as you have refuted that also, so if you could detail your own theory in your next argument, I would greatly appreciate it.
Okay, firstly responding to your first sentence, I am asking for a scientific response from you using the laws of science, as I have obviously shown how they do not apply to the almighty.
"Nothing is outside the laws of science..."
Yes there is; God is. Proof; these laws were created because time and space is finite, hence, they have not always existed, only for all time. Something exists outside of the laws of science in order to create these laws as well as the time and matter that is bound to it. Get to know this argument, because the way you keep dragging on about the above quoted statement, it'll be replayed a few times to come.
" ...which is why these laws gave us television, the Internet...(etc)... whilst religion brings nothing but conflict, murder and social repression."
The last time I checked; technology, summing up what you have stated in regard to scientific laws, also brings conflict, murder and social repression. God doesn't necessarily mean religion; religion can believe what it wants, I don't go as far as to say that God should be worshiped on a daily basis. I state that God created the laws of science and everything that is bound to it, nothing more.
"My theory is solid..."
Nuh-uh. Here's why, using a few quotes from your paragraph:
"If time began along with the universe, then the universe has existed for all time..."
Correct, that's as far as that argument needs to go. Unfortunately, you got me a bit confused:
"...therefore it can be said that the universe has always existed, as there was no time in which it did not."
Hmmm, define always for me. If you mean simply within time then yes, if you mean beyond it then no. God always existed, because God is not bound by time or space. The universe has existed for all time, nothing more.
Okay, now to argument paragraph 3. Your definition of God is irrelevant. All the we really can know is that God is not bound by his creations; the laws of science and all that is bound to it. As for the big bang theory, it was probably a smart move on your part, but it doesn't help you out in the long run. You still need to explain where all that energy came from, it didn't just "begin," something did something and time and space began with energy. In my point of view, God created time and space along with the energy that inhabited it. After all, my argument that God isn't bound by his creations, the laws of science, is solid in this department.
So, making things clearer this time, define where energy came from when time "began" using the laws of science. If energy cannot be created or destroyed within the laws of science, and since it cannot exist forever because time is finite, then how did it come to exist? My answer: God made it happen. Your answer: .............ah, that's right, you have no solid answer, my mistake. As a matter of fact, the only thing that you have really shown in this debate is that God's existence can be questioned, you haven't proved that he doesn't exist which is the whole point of your side.
Oh, and Happy Easter to you too! (No insult intended, sharing a holiday greeting)
Why do you say it needs to be disproved, your the one who needs to show some serious evidence for this strange belief. If you want others to take you seriously that is
Whatever pal, call it whatever you like. I mean, fine, don't disprove God's existence. All you gotta do is prove the fact that matter, order and all that jazz appeared spontaneously out of nothingness. That's not "disproving", that's actually "proving". Prove your position, then we can all go home and have a beer.
Your debate is drifting elsewhere now, your stance is you believe in a god, mine stance is i do not believe a god exists. Why should i need proof of otherwise when you are the one making this claim. I could also say i believe in unicorns, if you do not you must prove otherwise cause i have definitely seen one!
Buddy, I've provided evidence a million times in this debate. The opposition has also tried to do the same. Please do a search for these here as I'm not going to bother for the millionth time.
I look at the wonderful orderly universe and everything in it and I believe that it must have been designed by a creator.
You are taking in the facts of the creation and the laws of the universe and are making an assumption based on your own beliefs, that is not proof or evidence.
Since you say religion doesn't take place in a belief of god, does that mean you aren't religious?
I'm far from religious. I think that religions have lots of good values when their rules make people's lives better, but not when they start to get irrelevant and prescribe rules that are based on pure supernatural events and give people false hopes.
when they start to get irrelevant and prescribe rules that are based on pure supernatural events and give people false hopes.
That, to me, is the perfect way to explain why people believe in God. To give meaning to events beyond their understanding and to convince themselves that no matter how shit their lives are, they will be rewarded in the end. They will not. Deep down, we know that death is the end, which is why we do anything and everything within our power to prevent it. because we know that God is a superstition and that the afterlife is just wishful thinking.
Dude! What on God's green earth are you talking about? I'm talking about fraudulent ministers of evangelical churches supposedly healing people and making lame people walk and shit, that's bs. I'm not talking about the afterlife because as far as I'm concerned, it also exists.
yes because people believe in them. which is exactly what i said. i didnt say everyone believes in everything, at that point nothing would really matter, would it? But what i am saying that if you believe in something enough, you tend to make it real. people who think that zombies are real probably see zombies. people who believe in ghosts enough probably see ghosts.
your mind is very powerful. if you believe that you are sick, you can make yourself very ill. and that is a fact.
yes because people believe in them. which is exactly what i said. i didnt say everyone believes in everything, at that point nothing would really matter, would it?
Plenty of little boys and girls believe in it, and yet they aren't real.
But what i am saying that if you believe in something enough, you tend to make it real. people who think that zombies are real probably see zombies. people who believe in ghosts enough probably see ghosts.
What exists in your mind doesn't' follow into reality. We can only make certain things real after effort, but they must obey the laws of nature. A god doesn't fit into this.
your mind is very powerful. if you believe that you are sick, you can make yourself very ill. and that is a fact.
Right, but this mechanism doesn't make gods, it just deals with bodily integrity.
ok but what about the opposite. just because you dont think its real, it's not? how does that make sense but not the other way around.
and yes plenty of children believe and ghosts, monsters, zombies, whatever, and they are real to them their minds make it real, hell they probably are real because people like you don't believe in such creatures they arent real.
ok but what about the opposite. just because you dont think its real, it's not? how does that make sense but not the other way around.
Because belief in something has no relevance to its existence. Things exist apart of our awareness and recognition of them. Our mind is merely making a model of the universe that we can detect with our senses. What we see isn't even what is there in the objective sense, but a representation built using our brain's assignment of colour to EM wavelength, pattern recognition, our mind's association of chemical compounds with a smell that is appropriate based on desirability and with what affinity it binds to our olfactory receptors, and so on.
and yes plenty of children believe and ghosts, monsters, zombies, whatever, and they are real to them their minds make it real, hell they probably are real because people like you don't believe in such creatures they arent real.
Again, believing in something has no impact on its existence. We are what is real and an idea's ability to cause us to behave in strange ways is only reflective of ourselves. We are the agents that lend effect to something, we are what makes something non-existent have an impact on reality, but through all of this it is only we that exist and are doing those deeds.
learn to accept things
A simple way to know that you are wrong is that humans believe in all sorts of contradictory and mutually exclusive things. They can't all exist, which means your premise is wrong.
that was way long. straight the point. and just because you dont believe in things doesnt mean they dont exist.
I think you misunderstood it, read the first paragraph again. I said in the beginning: belief is irrelevant to something's existence. In other words whether or not we believe in something doesn't change whether it exists.
This is why merely believing in god doesn't make him real.
ok then in your opinion what would make these things exist????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????//
so you dont believe that love exists, or hurt or anger??
you dont believe that joy exists or happiness?
They do not physically exist. They are but emotions that we (and higher animals) carry and express. That is their limit. If we (and those higher animals) die, those emotions die with us.
well sometimes you believe in things involuntary. you cant help but to believe in the boogeyman, yet people do
Whether or not you can accept that emotions are feelings and not beliefs, it doesn't change the fact that they exist only as neurological pathways in our brains, and are not represented by tangible constructs in our external, objective reality.
Interesting question... But somehow, i believe, you have formulated it wrong... Does God exist? No one/nothing can prove it, but why should that minimize God's existence? God exists, but not as many people thinks... God exists for people who believes in God.
so then. god exists in a room where there is a believer. if a nonbeliever walks into that room, does god cease to exist? our beliefs dont cause gods to materialize. youve obviously never heard of mental illness or delusion. your argument is atrocious. i mean that in the kindest way.
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
existence of GodThe Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
It has wide margin between its boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
proof of GodWater is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
proof of GodNinety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6
The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
existence of GodThe human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?
existence of GodScientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
existence of GodHow is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."11
Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12
4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
existence of GodAll instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!
Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13
existence of GodWhy is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.
Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.
5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.
proof of GodI didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."
Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.
6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.
proof of GodHe said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."14 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."15
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.16
Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.
Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."17 This is God, in action.
existence of GodDoes God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."18
God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.
If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."19 If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen."
God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."20
Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way.
Concept: God is the being that had always existed and created everything.
Constraints: God cannot be sensed by our humanly senses, or if we could sense God it appears that God doesn't want any contact with us. Using reasoning alone we have faith in God's existence.
Evidence: The existence of matter and the set of rules that govern how everything relate to everything else to form the universe and everything in it. In other words, the existence of order.
Reasonings:
The existence of matter - Nothing cannot produce anything, so something/someone must have always existed to create everything else.
Order - There are rules that govern how things behave, everything behave according to a set of rules, there is absolutely a rule for everything in this universe. It is completely void of chaos or randomness.
Nothing cannot produce anything, so something/someone must have always existed to create everything else.
Can the something that always existed simply be the universe?
Order - There are rules that govern how things behave, everything behave according to a set of rules, there is absolutely a rule for everything in this universe. It is completely void of chaos or randomness.
Actually, order is an illusion, existence only moves towards balance because nothing can exist for long with imbalance. Balance means that something is in the optimum state that requires no change. The balance, in the long run, that the universe is moving towards means death for all life. Suns will go explode, some forming black holes and sucking matter away with them. The only true balance is emptiness.
Can the something that always existed simply be the universe?
No, because the universe is matter, time and space, all of which are not infinite. That's what "always existed" means.
Actually, order is an illusion, existence only moves towards balance because nothing can exist for long with imbalance. Balance means that something is in the optimum state that requires no change. The balance, in the long run, that the universe is moving towards means death for all life. Suns will go explode, some forming black holes and sucking matter away with them. The only true balance is emptiness.
Very poetic, but for now the "illusion" of order holds true and God is responsible for it.
I believe in a balancing power in the universe; a spiritual entity that governs all of life. The term "God" is suitable for this. I do not believe that this God simply snapped it's fingers and created life, the universe and everything in a matter of seconds, however, I do believe in a balancing force, and a place beyond life after death.
Want proof? The proof is in those stories about your grandpa, grandma, great grandpa, great gradma, mom and dad. The story of God was told the same way, passed from one generation to another.
If you are determined to not believe in God; than those are only tall tales that you have been told about your own family, by the same token. You never witnessed anything before you were born and therefore your own history does not exist. If you came from nowhere, that means you do not exist. Want only logic, proof and that which you have only seen for yourself?
God does exist i can prove it by simple questions, 1-how did humans come to life, 2-how did that happen?
3-From where did the materials come from?. I can go on when your done answering these three simple questions.
other stuff is Muslims book, the quraan, that book is 1400 years old and it said that the moon was divided to two half and combined, and not long ago like 5 to 10 years ago, scientist just discovered that..., it is impossible for any human to write a book like that with all the knowledge it contains, it itself can prove it was sent by god to us.
What you're saying does not prove that a christian god exists at all, you are not proving anything. I don't believe in 'God', mainly because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence he DOES NOT exist. I don't care if you believe in God or not, but if you are going to argue that he exists at least have a valid argument.
your questions dont prove the existence of a god. they are simply appeals to ignorance. more logical fallacy. only objective evidence could demonstrate the existence of a god. your questions only lead to more questions. you cant see that because you possess not the objectivity to examine them.
Yes there IS proof. The proof is in the evidence that is the universe. It is so perfectly formed and complex that it must be designed by a being. That being is God.
Apparently people call this theory the Watchmaker Theory. Check it out! There are arguments against this theory, but you'll find that they can't prove that God doesn't exist. The other thing is these rebuttals are easily countered.
Sorry to inform you, but that's not proof. How do you know that being that you believe created the Universe isn't a flying spaghetti monster that likes little children?
As far as your statement "There are arguments against this theory, but you'll find that they can't prove that God doesn't exist."
It is not non-believers job to prove God doesn't exist, simply because that is an impossible task. Religion has a history of changing when new evidence is found (Fossils, Earth revolving around the sun, etc.)
Well, if what created the Universe is a flying spaghetti monster that likes little children then fine, I'll call that God.
About the onus of proof, I have to say that the God theory is just a theory like the theory that everything exist all on its own. And you can't actually prove the spontaneous existence of everything either. For example, you and I both see a machine in front of us, I choose to believe that someone made it and put it there and you choose to believe that it just materialized all on its own. Now, what's more likely?
I don't have time to dispute your entire argument at the moment (Project) but I felt a need to correct you on something.
"For example, you and I both see a machine in front of us, I choose to believe that someone made it and put it there and you choose to believe that it just materialized all on its own. Now, what's more likely?"
There is a huge difference between the two. One has proof that something, whether it be a machine or a human, created it, the other has none. No one believes that something has come from nothing, but just because something comes from something doesn't mean an all powerful being exist, nor does it mean it doesn't exist.
Many years ago, God was believed to be the reason why Rainbows exist. Many years later we have the real reason: the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere...
Simply because we lack an answer currently does not mean we have to say some super natural being did so.
This is were things get frustrating dealing with those who believe in God. Anything you can't prove God must be behind it.
Ok, the word machine can be replaced with the word universe and then you should be able to see my point.
Rainbows are still made by God my friend, not just directly by hand like how we originally thought many years ago! Light, particles of photons and energy from the burning star (Sun), electrons and protons and other particles in the water molecules consisting of hydrogen and oxygen, the rules that govern the way light behaves, the nerves in our eyes that registers these lights and their different wavelengths, our brain's interpretation of these as different colours, the feelings we each get when we see it, everything. It's all made by God!
That's why it's frustrating to deal with us, it's because God IS behind all the stuff that allowed everything else to happen.
No, it's frustrating because you have no proof yet you pass off what you say as true to others.
No, what I said was fine. We know that there is a creator because there is proof that it exist, there is none for God.
You have as much proof that God is behind rainbows as I have that Unicorns that are ridden by Fairies magically fly through the sky with a magic Paint brush and Paint the Rainbow on the Sky.
Ok, you can't say that fairies painted rainbows, because we all know that it's light bent when travelling through a dense transparent material at an angle.
I'd like to just add one thing: I see a person putting whole oranges into one end of a machine and at the other end out comes fresh OJ and marmalade, I'd absolutely think it was amazing (wouldn't you?). Now I open the machine up and I know exactly how it happens, the whole process, that actually doesn't make it any less amazing! What's more I'd have more respect for the designer of that machine, now that I understand how it works.
The reason that light bends is because of the magical paint that the Unicorn and the Fairy paint on the sky.
You can not add God as the answer simply because of ignorance. This gets tiresome because regardless of what I say you can simply say "God made the mechanism for that to happen" or "God gave man the idea for that to be created." What you haven't realized is that you aren't really offering anything to the conversation, you are just making a statement of your personal beliefs.
Well, now we're getting somewhere: if you say that the magical paint causes the light to bend like it does then you actually might have a point! But wouldn't it be safer to say that the Fairy riding the Unicorn created the universe? ;)
There's really no need to bring anything else to the conversation. We're discussing God, the creator: He creates. Period.
If we're talking about green things in a house, then I've got lots of specifics to bring to the conversation. But we're talking about the being that did it all :) So it's just a matter of believe in it or not. I'm not trying to convert you to Christianity or Islam or whatever, I'm just saying there is a God. You don't actually have to throw your life away to believe that!
Complex things like a god can't come before simple things in a natural world, that's makes god supernatural and there are no supernatural things in the natural world. And if god is more complex than the universe then he must have had a creator as well and that creator had to have a creator and so on and so on in infinity.
Just because God created us doesn't mean that he must also be created. God created the universe. Period. Now, having said that, it's simply what I believe. It may well be true that God was created by a more complex being and so on and so forth, I just choose to stop at God because that's as far as my mind would allow me to go :)
If you can stop at god and say that doesn't need a creator then the universe does not need a creator either. Why does it need to be a who that created everything why can't it be a what? In nature there are no complex things like god springing out of nothing to create smaller things, there are always smaller things that create bigger things, god is impossible in the natural world.
What makes you think a god would be bound by the rules of nature as we know them (or by any rules for that matter)?
We're the creation, so we're bound by rules such as smaller things making bigger things, etc... but God is obviously not bound by any of these rules we know of, it is why god is impossible in our natural world.
That he is impossible in our natural world doesn't mean he doesn't exist, at all. Colors exist to us because we can discern the differences in the wavelengths of light, for those that can't, they don't know of colors but colors still exist.
If he is impossible in our world then he couldn't have created our world and be in our world so it's unnecessary to believe in him. If he's not in the world then he does not exist.
That's a fair call. But using a little bit of imagination, things can be more fun, especially if it doesn't detract from your life but makes it better...
So you want to believe in a fairytale, something that is not real? And you don't think that that detracts you from your life? How are you thinking, really? Believing things that aren't real can be extremely harmful for you and people around you, just look at the people that deny AIDS how they don't take their medicine to prevent their children from getting AIDS and when their children are born they don't take them to the doctor so that they can test them and get treatment.
Well, obviously these people are Atheists... I mean AIDS is as real as God, so when they don't believe in God, they also think that AIDS is also not real so that's their downfall right there...
No true Christians can't believe in science because science has looked at the facts in nature that says that animals have evolved and that conflicts with their beliefs. Faith is denial of observed facts.
The fine tuning argument is a tautology anyway. At the core it states that if things were different [constants of the universe] then things would be different [the universe].
The reason the universe appears fine tuned is because: we evolved to fit it. You wouldn't argue that because a fluid fits a glass perfectly that the glass was designed for the liquid.
I'm not saying God designed us for the universe. I'm saying God created the universe and everything in it (including us).
The universe evolved this way because it's followed a set of rules (constants, behaviors). Someone made the "beginning material" and also made those rules for those material to eventually evolve into what we have today.
Let's take your example of the glass and fluid. God created the glass and the fluid and the way they behave (or interact with each other and everything else).
The watchmaker argument IS the same as a fine tuning argument. They just have different names. You said in your earlier paragraph that god made us perfectly, and the universe, and everything within it. That's what a fine tuning argument is.
A god doesn't need to be invoked to explain this universe. Every time you invoke a god you just defer the question. Saying god made the "stuff" for the universe just means you must ask, where did the "stuff" come from and where did god come from?
Dude, if I saw some silica sand next to some water, i wouldn't say that there was a designer, but you're talking about a glass and water in it! But we're talking about something even bigger than that, we're talking about the fact that there's sand and water in the first place!!!
God didn't come from anywhere. He just is. If that's too hard to get your head around, consider this: nothingness cannot produce anything, ever, so the only option left is that SOMETHING must have always existed, and caused or created everything else.
All you're doing is defining a concept to have its own solution without actually creating a solution. This is what theology is good at, it's called mental gymnastics because it constrains your ability to see the obvious, because you're forced to work with unnecessary assumptions.
I'll give you an example:
Everything was created January 1st, 2010. You then ask what proof I have. I tell you that Gerungtoter made the universe at that time, and implanted false memories into us, and we can't sense him. You ask who Gerungtoter is and I say "a super-duper alien." You ask how he could do this, how he got here. I say "He's all powerful with his magic and just is."
I just defined an entire logical system there, in addition to wrapping up important questions, all within this framework. If you accept the premises then it must logically follow, and you can never investigate beyond what it posits.
However if you ask the right questions that aren't limited by what I defined Gerungtoter as, and his universe as being, then it quickly falls apart. Who made Gerungtoter? What use is Gerungtoter in learning how the universe functions? If Gerungtoter can be self-existing, why can't the universe be? Etc.
You yourself just defeated your own god. Remember when you typed:
"If that's too hard to get your head around, consider this: nothingness cannot produce anything, ever"
You just said it there. If nothingness cannot produce anything, then your god couldn't have come into being. But also:
"so the only option left is that SOMETHING must have always existed"
If something must have always existed, then your god is superfluous. The universe always existed in some form.
The simple answer is that adding "god" into cosmology isn't profound or hard to understand, it's simply unnecessary.
Now if you want something REALLY profound to contemplate, if our universe has flat geometry, it means that our universe could have popped into existence from nothing, due to incredibly improbable quantum fluctuations and a near-infinite amount of time. Quantum fluctuations are an observed phenomenon, by the way.
If you say that Gerungtoter created the universe, then I can accept that Gerungtoter is just a name that you gave to God, but I would recommend that you don't restrict creation to January 1st, 2010. I mean why limit to that date when you're talking about the creator?
If God has always existed, so could the universe
The universe could have always existed.
The universe must have always existed.
So because it could have (but not must have) always existed, we can say that God created it instead.
You can go ahead and believe that matter had always existed and that the rules that govern how everything behave have always existed. I'll take God instead. After that, we're not that different. I'm as capable in studying the workings of the universe as you are. Belief in the agent of creation doesn't actually stop me from studying his work.
Quantum fluctuations
If I believe that God created all matter, then there's nothing you can say that will negate that view, including quantum fluctuations. A flat geometry universe popping into existence by itself is a charming proposition nonetheless :)
"If you say that Gerungtoter created the universe, then I can accept that Gerungtoter is just a name that you gave to God, but I would recommend that you don't restrict creation to January 1st, 2010. I mean why limit to that date when you're talking about the creator?"
Gerungtoter is not god. It is a hyper-advanced alien according to the theology I created.
The date it set and limited as a matter of Dogma. You must believe it to be true no matter how silly it is. That is how faith and dogma work. Examples:
A man rising from the dead and ascending literally into heaven.
The universe being created in 2010.
Xenu being the dark master of the galaxy/universe.
Golden plates being the basis of the Book of Mormon.
"So because it could have (but not must have) always existed, we can say that God created it instead."
Why? Why add unnecessary premises to something? What you're doing is like saying "Sure differences in charge cause massive discharges known as lightening, but we can say that god causes those discharges too."
God is superfluous if matter is eternal. It's as simple as that.
"Belief in the agent of creation doesn't actually stop me from studying his work."
It makes you a wishful thinker. Why stop with god? Why not add unicorns, pixies and zombies to the list? After all they could exist too, and despite there being no evidence for them, it's only because they are above our ability to detect them.
Muslims believe in djinn as a matter of fact just as you do with god. No evidence exists for either but argue with someone who believes that djinn cursed someone, or used magic, or whatever.
"If I believe that God created all matter, then there's nothing you can say that will negate that view, including quantum fluctuations"
Hence why I called your belief a form of close-mindedness.
Whatever. I don't need a religion to believe in God. No dogma either.
Why add unnecessary premises to something
It's not unnecessary. For me, it explains God's existence.
For you, you can say that everything had always been there and all the rules that bound everything together had always been there. But for me, a designer sounds more likely. So while it's unnecessary for you, it's very necessary for me and others who refuse to believe order was an accident that happened without a designer.
It makes you a wishful thinker.
Actually, it makes me an imaginative thinker, and I'd like to quote Einstein at this point for effect:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand"
"Whatever. I don't need a religion to believe in God. No dogma either."
God is a strictly religious concept. Creation is a textbook example of dogma.
"It's not unnecessary. For me, it explains God's existence.
For you, you can say that everything had always been there and all the rules that bound everything together had always been there. But for me, a designer sounds more likely. So while it's unnecessary for you, it's very necessary for me and others who refuse to believe order was an accident that happened without a designer."
You're using circular reasoning. Something like "god is necessary because it explains god's existence."
Your second statement has no rational backing, you are actually arguing that a designer "feels" likely and therefore must be. Knowledge doesn't work that way. There is no positive evidence for a designer (saying something looks complex or improbable isn't an argument for design, it's an argument from your lack of knowledge of how the system works or became that way). Therefore, a designer can never actually be more likely, because in order for it to have any merit, it must be EVIDENCED.
"Actually, it makes me an imaginative thinker, and I'd like to quote Einstein at this point for effect:"
God is a strictly religious concept. Creation is a textbook example of dogma
Says you.
You're using circular reasoning. Something like "god is necessary because it explains god's existence.
You should actually quote me properly, don't make up shit and then attribute that to me. I didn't say "god is necessary because it explains god's existence". I said "God is necessary because the universe is all matter and order". Or if you like: "The universe is made up of matter and has order, so someone must have created it". There's no circular reasoning in that.
There is no positive evidence for a designer (saying something looks complex or improbable isn't an argument for design, it's an argument from your lack of knowledge of how the system works or became that way).
Does anyone know how the system "became that way"? No? So why don't we look at the 2 theories:
1 - God exists because there's matter and order. Those 2 things inferred God's existence as their creator.
2 - God doesn't exist because matter and order had always existed by themselves without the need to be designed/created.
Since neither can be proven, I'm going with the one that sounds more likely, because:
a) matter can't just pop into existence from nothingness.
b) order results from design. No design = chaos, and the universe is void of chaos.
Why is that so hard for you to get?
Thou shalt not quotemine
You accuse me of quote mining, now come up with some evidence or reasoning. At least give us the context of the quote you accused me of misusing.
"You should actually quote me properly, don't make up shit and then attribute that to me. I didn't say "god is necessary because it explains god's existence". I said "God is necessary because the universe is all matter and order". Or if you like: "The universe is made up of matter and has order, so someone must have created it". There's no circular reasoning in that."
I said something like.
You said that god is necessary because the universe is matter and has order. You then proceeded to say that you find this helpful in understanding god.
I paraphrased you in order to highlight your circular reasoning.
You asserted that god exists as part of the universe, you then used this assertion, that it exists as part of the universe to help help you understand your first assertion.
"Does anyone know how the system "became that way"? No? So why don't we look at the 2 theories:"
You're making an argument from ignorance. Big bang cosmology covers the early formation of the universe, stellar evolution covers another page, nebular hypothesis is the next step, abiogenesis covers the formation of life, evolution covers the diversity and change in life.
"1 - God exists because there's matter and order. Those 2 things inferred God's existence as their creator.
2 - God doesn't exist because matter and order had always existed by themselves without the need to be designed/created."
Number 1 negates the premise of god: god is undetectable and therefore cannot be inferred or deduced from anything by definition.
Number 2 isn't a theory. The actual thing you refer to is thermodynamics which makes god creating matter impossible and unnecessary because according to the first law matter cannot be created or destroyed.
"Since neither can be proven, I'm going with the one that sounds more likely, because:"
Thermodynamics is at the core of physics. It's proven.
By default number 1 can never be likely because anything involving god will always have no evidence.
"a) matter can't just pop into existence from nothingness."
Quantum vacuums provide empirical evidence to the contrary.
"b) order results from design. No design = chaos, and the universe is void of chaos.
Why is that so hard for you to get?"
You should be asking why you're still resorting to an incoherent argument.
Order results naturally in this universe. See crystal formation, evolution, nebula hypothesis, just to name a few.
"You accuse me of quote mining, now come up with some evidence or reasoning. At least give us the context of the quote you accused me of misusing."
Albert Einstein was never a theist in the same vein as you. He used god as a metaphor for nature, or the natural laws. He thought the theistic (religious) version of god was childish. Your attempt to use his quote to support you having imagination is therefore disharmonious with his views.
This was your assertion. Not mine. Don't assert something false then go and look it up in the dictionary. Look up the word God alone, don't get distract my friend.
Definition 1 says nothing about religion. You said religion. YOU.
I paraphrased you in order to highlight your circular reasoning
You didn't just paraphrase, you made shit up.
You asserted that god exists as part of the universe
There you go again, making shit up, I didn't say that God is part of the universe. God made the universe.
You're making an argument from ignorance. Big bang cosmology covers the early formation of the universe, stellar evolution covers another page, nebular hypothesis is the next step, abiogenesis covers the formation of life, evolution covers the diversity and change in life
I know all these theories. Except there's no theory to account for how matter and order (constants and rules of behavior) came into existence in the beginning. That's where God came in my friend! God created the universe and if those theories of Big Bang and whatever are true, they're simply how the universe was created following the rules.
god is undetectable and therefore cannot be inferred or deduced from anything by definition.
Which definition is this? I've just used logical deduction to say God exists and you say I can't by definition. But I just did.
matter cannot be created or destroyed
Yeah, once it's there! God put it there in the beginning. Thermowatchamacallit is studying the existing matter. Humans created that law.
"Quantum vacuums provide empirical evidence..." that matter can pop into existence from nothingness
Ok, when matter is successfully created, let me know.
Order results naturally in this universe. See crystal formation, evolution, nebula hypothesis, just to name a few.
You say it's natural (as in just happens by itself), I say God created the rules and order. For me, natural would be complete and utter random chaos. No regular shapes, no constants, no movements in straight lines.
Albert Einstein was never a theist in the same vein as you. He used god as a metaphor for nature, or the natural laws. He thought the theistic (religious) version of god was childish. Your attempt to use his quote to support you having imagination is therefore disharmonious with his views
Once again I will confirm that I don't need a religion to believe in God and God is not strictly a religious concept. Einstein wants to inspire imagination from people like you (who think that science is the be all and end all). Have an imagination and look up Theistic Evolutionist. That's probably what I am.
Wouldn't the fact that the universe is "so perfectly formed and complex" just prove evolution? Think about it everything space happens from chemical reactions the motion of things throughout the universe. It HAS to be so perfect and complex because of the billions of years of things colliding and such. The only god that exists is time.
Why oh why is there so much bickering about this? One side hates the term natural while clinging to intelligence. The other abhors the term intelligent and insists (yet doesn't truly believe) that everything is natural.
Sounds like the issue has to do with definition, not necessarily reality.
The faithless half of this debate see the same universe we do. They just don't feel the attachment to it that we feel. I am pretty sure that it is faith that makes the difference.
What amazes me though is the fact that what you have faith in and what I have faith in seem very much opposed now-a-days.
You likely have faith in god or Jesus or some other weird old school religiousy thing.
I have faith in naturalism. My understanding of evolution led me to believe that we are natural and I now believe it so deeply it can be considered faith.
Once I realized that, it took about two weeks for the universe to shoot me in the head with big logic gun. Ever have thoughts that take your breath away?
Anyway, I have felt an incredible connection and attachment to the universe as a whole ever since.
How you and I define god when we write our descriptions down on paper, might not mesh well. But if we get to talking I bet we could find quite a few analogues between the two.
None that we have. On a topic like this you see the word "believe" a lot. You can't say God exist because it is your personal belief, there is no logic reasoning that can be used to explain the idea of God. On the other hand, you can't say there is no God, because they have no proof of his non-existence.
Simplified, it teaches us that two contradictory propositions cannot both be both true and false, simultaneously. One must be false and the other true. For example:
1) God exists.
2) God exists not.
As logical propositions they contradict one another; both cannot be false, both cannot be true, only one is true and its contradictory must be false. Bare in mind I have briefly addressed this principle, there is much more to it.
A priori knowledge/justification
There are two basic forms of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori.
While there is much debate about the distinction of the two forms, ‘a priori’ knowledge is acquired by reason alone. And ‘a posteriori’ knowledge is acquired from scientific experiment.
Now back to the question of this debate: “Do gods exist?”
The existence of god is not discovered by scientific experiment. There is no experiment to affirm or deny the existence of god. The existence of god is a conclusion of reason alone. Ergo, any argument for or against the existence of god is ‘a priori’ knowledge/justification. And hence is not subject to scientific proof.
(There are many resources available on the internet addressing the principles I have addressed.)
Challenge:
Man-like creatures do not inhabit the Earth’s moon.
Man-like creatures inhabit the Earth’s moon.
One of these propositions is true and its contradictory must be false. (Excluded middle)
A priori or a posteriori knowledge: (your answer_______________)
Now, substitute ‘the Earth’s moon’ with ‘the Sun’s inner core’.
Again, one is true and the other is false; but this time our knowledge is not ‘a posteriori’.
Since you're not a fence-sitter, then which side are you arguing for? Or do you have the habits of avoiding the actual debate topics everywhere you go?
Gods exist even if you only see the result of their work, like electricity.
Correct, I am not a fence-sitter and neither have I been accused of being other than such (well, at least by they who partially know my mind).
Concerning debate subjects, it has been my experience that few at CD can argue the premises of a conclusion. Consequently, I tend to follow the straw-man arguments.
Finally, concerning the existence of god, I am ignorant of the debate creator's meaning of God. However, I am on record as one who believes in One who is a god.
Where did I say electricity is magic? Stop embarrassing yourself.
Having said that I think electricity is pretty magical, like all of God's creations.
I once spoke to Jesus and he told me that a debater here by the name of EnigmaticMan is an idiot... I didn't believe him, but now... I dunno, I can't ignore the prophecy, y'know?
However, it is impossible to present proof on this because there is not proof either way. If the debate was about whether I believe in God and why/why not that would be different.
Is the Bible real? What is reality? What makes something real? You cannot "PROVE" anything. You can only supply evidence for it. What if you're dreaming, or this is like The Matrix? You cannot say anything for certain.
To prove something means simply to test it. If it is a scientific proof, then the test takes the form of an experiment. Science has tested and confirmed many many things. The existence of God has not been tested because they can't think of how to perform the test.
The Matrix is a great example. We're like individuals in the matrix and god created it. The difference is that in the movie, people can go in and out of the matrix. Here in reality, you can't.
Well ignoring the definition of "existence" used on the other side, where stuff we imagine exists in that it is in our head,
No, there's no such thing as a god or gods or any divine being in a religious sense.
I mean, sure you could say that to an ant we are quite god-like, so I suppose it is possible somewhere in this vast Universe there could be some thing which would in comparison be god-like.
But a god as in looks over us, or created us, or goes around playing tricks on people like Loki or something,
The fact that one doesn't "see" Gods, doesn't mean Gods don't exist.
There's something I'd like for you to consider:
there are approx 6 billion people on Earth, and you can't possibly see them all in your lifetime, you only read about them on the newspapers, magazines, see their images on TV, hear about them from others, and guess what? that's still not all of them! You're not likely to see or touch all of them in your life-time. So, do they exist?
Yes, because despite the fact that we can't see them, there is still evidence of their existence, in the fact that there are censuses conducted in most of the countries around the world.
If you gave me the name of a specific person, I would ask you for proof, and if you could provide none, then I would have no reason to believe you.
Even this isn't a good example, however, because there is a big difference between saying certain people exist, and an all powerful all knowing creator of the universe exists. I know that it is possible for people to exist because I've seen quite a few of them. Never have I encountered anything that even closely resembles what might be described as a god.
This once again brings us back to the beginning...if there is a god show me evidence.
"Census data"? written in books? evidence of existence from data in books? Books written by people you may never ever meet? that sounds like Gods to me!
Also you can see people, but not Gods, that's because people can be seen and met. Gods can't be seen nor met. But just because something can't be seen nor met, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...
So we're not back to the beginning, we're still on the point of: Just because you haven't met Gods, doesn't mean Gods don't exist. There is evidence of Gods' work all around you my friend... ;)
I'm going to ignore the 1st sentence, because I think we can both agree that it's a little silly.
You are correct that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, I must also question your claim that there is evidence all around me. How about you give me an example?
No no no, don't ignore it, you brought it up and I'm simply comparing what you brought up:
Evidence of people on paper = evidence of Gods on paper. Census data evidencing people while bibles & korans, etc. evidence Gods. And we have agreed that just because Gods can't be met nor seen, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Now, evidence of Gods' existence is in everything. The entire universe. In all things that can as well as cannot be explained by science. Science is how humans study and understand Gods' work. My friend, you think everything in the universe just happened? No design?
Okay, so you are giving 2,000 year old books the same credibility that you give census data? How do you account for the fact that many of them are contridictory, and some of them talk about many gods, whereas others talk about a single god? As I said before, I know what a person is because I have seen examples, whereas I have no experience in dealing with gods, therefore a census is much more reliable. Once again: this argument is silly and unrelated.
You still haven't explained how the universe is evidence of gods existence. There are still many mysteries we have about the beginning of the universe, but from a few moments after the big bang on scientists can basically explain how the universe came about with fairly good accuracy, using relatively few sets of natural laws (quantum mechanics, general relativity). If the universe was designed for humans then God wasted a shitload of space. Earth is the only known place we can live, and even on earth, most of the planet is uninhabitable. So yes, I would say that there is no overarching design behind the universe.
However, clearly you are of the opinion that it is designed, so, enlighten me.
2000 years from now, your census data books will be just as old as the bible now. If you want to discredit the bibles and korans and whatever else, age is not going to do it sufficiently.
I can't say if my god is the only one that exists and other gods don't. Perhaps there is only 1 god and that we all know that god by different names, perhaps there are actually many gods... I just don't know.
In my previous post, I did say that science is how humans study and explain God's work, so all these quantum mechanics and whatnots are how scientists study God's work. What if I say to you the Big Bang was god's work? The efficient use of space by God is not our topic and it doesn't prove or disprove God's existence. Anyhow, I don't think God design things the way we do (efficient use of space, specific purpose, etc...). We have limited resources, so we have to maximize our use of them with our designs. I guess gods work with a different set of rules :)
The reason that I am saying that the books are unreliable is that they make outrageous claims with no evidence (much like you are doing now). Census data merely says that there are a certain number of people in an are: whether this number is accurate or not can certainly be questioned, but at least the concept of a certain number of people living in an are is plausable. I know, for instance, that there must be at least some people in China, because all my stuff says "made in China" on it. It therefore isn't that indredible for me to believe that there are 1.3 billion people living there. Any other explanation would involve some type of vast conspiricy, and when two thoeries explain the evidence equally well, the simplest is usually the best.
I can't say if my god is the only one that exists and other gods don't. Perhaps there is only 1 god and that we all know that god by different names, perhaps there are actually many gods... I just don't know.
That's pretty much what I've been saying, except that you also don't know if your god exists either... you couldn't.
What if I say to you the Big Bang was god's work?
Then you would once again be making an arbitrary statement without any proof. Look I can do it too: I am sitting next to a 3,000 pound monkey. There is no way for you to disprove this claim, but obviously you need more evidence if you are going to believe it. Me simply making a claim is meaningless without evidence.
Why do you choose to ignore the evidence I give you: the universe???
You believe that there are people in China because they make the things that you buy. Why don't you believe that gods exist because they make the things all around you?
I certain know that my god exists, because like I've been telling you, I based my belief of that god's existence in the things all around me.
If you say there's a 3,000 pound monkey sitting next to you (gigling out loud), then I must believe you if you gave me believable evidence. I've been giving you very believable evidence: the amazing universe and everything in it, so harmonious, so perfect, so awe-inspiring... was it an accident that we were the perfect distance from the Sun for life to exist? Everything I learn about biology and the natural world reinforces my belief in a god. You on the other hand choose not to believe... and you have no reason other than you can't see or touch God?
"was it an accident that we were the perfect distance from the Sun for life to exist?"
There's a flaw in your causation here. We are here because we are the right distance from the Sun, however, your assumption is that the Sun is the right distance away from us because we are here. We aren't the cause, we are the result.
And in this case I would say that adding God into the equation is about as useful as saying "1+0=1, therefore we must always take 0 into account". God isn't necessary for these things to happen.
Ok now that I understand your point, I'll say that God created the entire equation. He created the 1 and all the other numbers and the = sign. He created the universe or whatever formed the universe or whatever formed that!
NVYN, I've read through this entire thread, and I must say that equation is not the only thing you've missed the point of.
What Rev is saying is that (for you) pretend for a moment there was no god. All of this stuff you keep naming as proof of god could still exist.
So then why add god... or 0 to this equation going by Rev's argument.
Your "proof" is not proof to me at all. You are simply talking about things that exist without making any logically necessary connection.
It's like that movie "The God's Must Be Crazy" when the Aborigine fellow sees a Coke bottle drop out of the sky, and assumes of course it must be from god because... well just because.
You sound like the Westernized version of that tribesman to me... as do all theistic people so don't take it personal.
I know what she said, but we disagree on whether that's true. She's saying it could exist without a god, but I'm saying it's more likely that a god designed it all. That's all. When I say he made the equation, I actually meant it. I mean God is the all-powerful, all-encompassing being (and I sound like a religious freak, but in fact I don't know most of the koran or any other religious text and I haven't stepped into a temple or church or sinagogue for a long long time).
Loved the movie The Gods must be crazy back then. But think about your example, if i'm that tribesman then you must be in my tribe, and if I thought that bottle was from God and you couldn't explain it any other way with all the knowledge you had, then how do we know God doesn't exist?
You saying God doesn't exist, doesn't make it so. Back up your words with solid proof. Can't be done, to claim there is no God is just one man's uneducated opinion. Means little here and less to the rest of the world.
You saying God does exist, doesn't make it so. Back up your words with solid proof. Can't be done, to claim there is a God is just one man's uneducated opinion. Means little here and less to the rest of the world.
Who are you? Just a figure of my imagination, I guess. Remember, you don't exist. Is iamdavidh a god? Of coarse not, surely a god would be more original. Resentment in his tone, only the guy who shines God's shoes. Do better and he might tip you the next time.
Didn't say my argument was valid. Try to come up with a better come back next time. Want a valid reason, I will give you one that Pascal gave for God's existence.
"The heart has reasons which reason knows not of."
Look at this logically. How can there just 'be' an omnipotent being, without first knowing, with proof, where he came from and how his power came to be. Why should he not cease to exist, you say? You''re minds keep Him alive, and only that.
I'm gonna use lawnman's example of electrons and atoms and say that you can't see these things nor know where they come from, but they exist nonetheless!
We know that atoms and electrons exist because we can see their effects. We can measure them. We can even probe them using atomic force microscopy.
This isn't the case with god. No matter how much you pray, or search, there just isn't a shed of evidence to show he's there. In lieu of this people resort to personal experiences like "I feel him!" or "I saw him!" or miracles. But these are all easily explained by our suggestibility, our biases in filtering information, among other flaws in the way we sense things.
I've probably said already somewhere else in this debate that just because something can't be seen nor doesn't want to be seen doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm sure you can think of a few examples where this is true. We're talking about the being that created the universe! We have 5 senses, anything beyond those 5 senses we'll be completely oblivious to...
When you debate a subject, or a concept, you define the concept, its constraints, unless it is well-known enough that you do not have to. You then provide evidence for your position, because the facts are what make or break a case. You then try to explain the evidence, and conclusions the facts imply which support you.
What you have done is different. You make an assumption (God is real, created the universe, created everything in its present form), and you present no evidence. When pressed you do not provide evidence, but insist that evidence cannot be gathered because "god" is beyond our ability to experience evidence for. When pressed further you restate one of your assumptions as a fact that supports your other assumptions.
Your entire position is based upon assumptions which simultaneously must act as facts to support each other. You have nothing supporting your viewpoint.
Concept: God is the being that had always existed and created everything.
Constraints: God cannot be sensed by our humanly senses, or if we could sense God it appears that God doesn't want any contact with us. Using reasoning alone we have faith in God's existence.
Evidence: The existence of matter and the set of rules that govern how everything relate to everything else to form the universe and everything in it. In other words, the existence of order.
Reasonings:
The existence of matter - Nothing cannot produce anything, so something/someone must have always existed to create everything else.
Order - There are rules that govern how things behave, everything behave according to a set of rules, there is absolutely a rule for everything in this universe. It is completely void of chaos or randomness.
"God cannot be sensed by our humanly senses, or if we could sense God it appears that God doesn't want any contact with us. Using reasoning alone we have faith in God's existence."
Faith and reasoning do not go together. Besides if god cannot be detected, then parsimony dictates that god isn't necessary.
"The existence of matter and the set of rules that govern how everything relate to everything else to form the universe and everything in it. In other words, the existence of order."
This is evidence of a universe, not of god. Remember you said that god cannot be detected, so therefore no positive evidence can exist of god, by definition.
"Nothing cannot produce anything, so something/someone must have always existed to create everything else."
Parsimony again dictates that you are simply arguing for eternal matter and energy, with god being superfluous. This is already covered by the first law of thermodynamics, which needs no god.
"There are rules that govern how things behave, everything behave according to a set of rules, there is absolutely a rule for everything in this universe. It is completely void of chaos or randomness."
We may have models which describe and predict nature, and those models may be very accurate, but always remember that the universe isn't bound to our models, our models are bound to nature.
Besides, quantum mechanics shows that the universe is deeply chaotic at microscopic levels.
if god cannot be detected, then parsimony dictates that god isn't necessary
Not necessary when? God created the universe, so if God didn't, then parsimony says we wouldn't be here. So God is necessary for the universe to exist.
Evidence
You can't detect his existence, but you can see the universe and its order and deduce his existence.
Parsimony again dictates that you are simply arguing for eternal matter and energy, with god being superfluous. This is already covered by the first law of thermodynamics, which needs no god.
God is eternal, but I never said God is matter. He made matter, applied energy and gave all of it rules. How does thermodynamics (a study of one of the components of Gods universe) prove that God is not required? You are becoming very illogical.
And finally, I'm not convinced that there is chaos at all.... microscopic or not. I mean just because we haven't worked out the rule, doesn't mean the rule isn't there. We're discovering new constants and behaviors all the time in nature.
"Not necessary when? God created the universe, so if God didn't, then parsimony says we wouldn't be here. So God is necessary for the universe to exist."
When confronted with two nearly identical propositions, such as "god created the universe from eternal matter" and "the universe was always existing in some form of eternal matter" parsimony dictates that "god" is superfluous because it is an assumption with no justification, and only makes the explanation it is tied less likely to be true because it adds one more assumption that must be true for the explanation to be correct.
Parsimony is related to occam's razor.
Finally, you just asserted without justification that god created the universe. There is no evidence of this, and asserting god's requirement as you just did does not logically follow.
"You can't detect his existence, but you can see the universe and its order and deduce his existence."
This sentence self contradicts. If you can't detect god's existence, then you can't deduce anything about god, period. Just as we cannot deduce anything about parallel universes or even if they exist.
"God is eternal, but I never said God is matter. He made matter, applied energy and gave all of it rules. How does thermodynamics (a study of one of the components of Gods universe) prove that God is not required? You are becoming very illogical."
You're creating a strawman of my position. I said that thermodynamics dictates that matter and energy are eternal, therefore needing no god to create them.
Your reasoning is similar to insisting that in addition to electricity powering a lightbulb, god must be involved somehow "because it's god's creation." You take a simple scientific proposition and needlessly insert god into it with no justification.
"And finally, I'm not convinced that there is chaos at all.... microscopic or not. I mean just because we haven't worked out the rule, doesn't mean the rule isn't there. We're discovering new constants and behaviors all the time in nature."
Quantum mechanics doesn't support a hidden variable. This has been negated by experimentation. It really is random, but don't take my word for it, read a college text on the subject.
When confronted with two nearly identical propositions, such as "god created the universe from eternal matter" and "the universe was always existing in some form of eternal matter" parsimony dictates that "god" is superfluous
Who said matter is eternal? Matter is finite. Time is finite. Space is finite. God, on the other hand is eternal.
If you can't detect god's existence, then you can't deduce anything about god, period.
Why can't you deduce? Check this out (again): Matter cannot come from nothingness, yet here we all are. So it follows that matter was created. We all call this creator God.
You're creating a strawman of my position. I said that thermodynamics dictates that matter and energy are eternal, therefore needing no god to create them
Well, I said that God is eternal and God created everything else.
Then you said: "Parsimony again dictates that you are simply arguing for eternal matter and energy, with god being superfluous".
Where did I say matter and energy are eternal? If I didn't say it and also didn't mean it, don't make it up.
The other thing is I don't believe that God cares for the nitty gritty little things like lighting a lightbulb. But I could be wrong.
It really is random, but don't take my word for it, read a college text on the subject.
Just give me one thing that is random in this universe. One thing.
this question cant really answer much because its the believes of someone and the opinion of someone.you can't really tell or show that there's a god, there's no proof of neither, either you believe in it or not it's not really something that matters in the life of humans
It matters a great deal to a lot of people (especially the fanatically religious). Some people strap bombs to themselves and blow others up for what they believe to be the calling of their gods. Others reach out to others and help and give try to live a life that's unselfish because they believe it would please their gods. So it actually matters a lot. It matters so much some give their lives.
It makes me think, if we can answer this question conclusively, what would happen? Should we make this a new topic for debate?
we beleive in them because we think they solve all our problems when there is no one to help us whereas in real life this does not happen but since we have prayed and what we want has happened we think they exist
i am torn between believing in him and not having faith. in one case, you have to think; where did the world come from and how did we get here if no one put us here. but on the other hand, we look at all the bad things that happen to Haiti, the children there and the same in Chile. and we also look at these little innocent children that are getting cancer and tumors, and they have done nothing.
therefore, i am on the boarder of believing and not.
But basically, there's more good in the world than evil, God is the almighty and we're his subjects and can't see all of his plans... etc...
The other thing is death isn't bad either, it's a part of life like birth and everything else, you can't escape it. Everyone must die, some die of old age, others die while doing things they love, others die accidentally, it's how you live that really matters, it's how we live that separates us because death comes to us all and in death we are all the same!
Life exists without death. You are alive right now arnt you? Life is whatever current state you are in. Weither that is a tree or a air moleclue or a human being. They are all forms of a working system.
ok, so death is the beginning of another journey? The journey of transferring energy back into the ecosystem and becoming something else later on? So it's not a bad thing and we shouldn't think of it as a reason to not believe in God?
If all humans suddenly ceased to exist my bicycle would still exist, a house would still exist, light would still exist, animals would still exist. All these things could be sensed by another animal. BECAUSE THOSE THINGS EXIST WITH OR WITHOUT HUMANS! An animal could not sense god because he doesn't exist.
So a human being who doesn't want to be seen nor met, and can't be seen nor met ... doesn't exist? That's a fallacy and even you know that.
Just as an example, say I've done some work on earth, but now I just want to disappear so I take my self-sustaining spaceship and put in the coordinates for the next galaxy. No-one knows about me or can see or meet or hear me or contact me, but they can only see my work. Does that mean I don't exist?
Humans are not capable of grasping what is beyond their senses and seeing as the idea of a God is beyond what they can comprehend it is pointless to speculate.
Simplified, it teaches us that two contradictory propositions cannot both be both true and false, simultaneously. One must be false and the other true. For example:
1) God exists.
2) God exists not.
As logical propositions they contradict one another; both cannot be false, both cannot be true, only one is true and its contradictory must be false. Bare in mind I have briefly addressed this principle, there is much more to it.
A priori knowledge/justification
There are two basic forms of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori.
While there is much debate about the distinction of the two forms, ‘a priori’ knowledge is acquired by reason alone. And ‘a posteriori’ knowledge is acquired from scientific experiment.
Now back to the question of this debate: “Do gods exist?”
The existence of god is not discovered by scientific experiment. There is no experiment to affirm or deny the existence of god. The existence of god is a conclusion of reason alone. Ergo, any argument for or against the existence of god is ‘a priori’ knowledge/justification. And hence is not subject to scientific proof.
(There are many resources available on the internet addressing the principles I have addressed.)
There is only one all powerful being on this world, and that is Man.
We have created life: Synthetic Viruses.
We are self aware.
We are capable of knowing anything except what happens after death, and I believe that is the root of the debate. If we could answer that question then the existence of a God would be either proven or dis-proven.
Still, consider this:
No one currently alive has ever spoken to either God or Jesus. (deluded imaginings do not qualify as conversations)
The Bible was written by men who never met Jesus or God, and frequently and reliably contradicts itself.
The existence of God implies the existence of Magic, which is a ludicrous idea.
An all knowing, perfect creature would be incapable of creating imperfection, i.e man.
Anyone who believes in a traditional God is either an indoctrinated child, or a feeble-minded Cretin, incapable of logic or individual thought.
Jesus was a man that walked the earth. everyone for 2010 years has agreed on that point. it is indisputable that he lived and walked and talked with people, who followed him, loved him, were disappointed by him, or killed him, but none who made him up themselves. his words and actions are recorded in various places including the gospels, which were written by the people who followed him wherever he went for 3 years, and separate, secular histories that concur with the bible on his humanity and existence.
you may dispute his claims to deity, you may declare his words to be false, but you cannot deny his existence.
we have created synthetic viral life: what of the rest of life, including ourselves?
Viruses are not actually living, because they cannot reproduce by themselves. They are really only bundles of DNA in a protein membrane that insert the DNA into other organisms so that the other organism will copy the DNA. I like the rest though...
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke
Anything that resembles magic or a miracle doesn't automatically vindicate the existence of God. For most people, the existence of God gives meaning to a seamlessly pointless existence, therefore, religion is a drug. "Religion is the opiate of the masses' Karl Marx
Anyone who believes in a traditional God is either an indoctrinated child, or a feeble-minded Cretin, incapable of logic or individual thought.
So according to you ... advanced technology = magic... So God created the universe with advanced tech? That sounds pretty cool to me :)
Anyways, the belief in God doesn't require anyone to subscribe to religion at all. But just for fun, let's discuss your calling believers feeble-minded Cretins: Since the belief in a God gives believers meaning to their lives, non-believers logically are living meaningless lives? That's kinda sad... sadder than the feeble-minded Cretins that believers are...
No, God didn't create the universe. The Big Bang created the universe.
When you can present concrete scientific evidence that God does exist excluding for fake books and stories, there is no logical reason to believe until then, I will stick with evolution theory.
Stick with Evolution if you like, but just know that it's also not a concrete theory. Since you're asking for concrete scientific evidence, why do you believe in Evolution?
You prove my point, 'belief in a God gives believers meaning to their lives'. If your only meaning in life comes from believing in what is essentially a fairy-tale, then you are the one living a meaningless life.
Neither Evolution nor Creation nor anything regarding the beginning is concrete. So believing in gods is no more a fairy tale than believing the universe magically appearing out of nothingness (aka evolution).
Besides, meaning is meaning, even if it's a fairy tale. I'm sure you believe in something... even if it's not concrete... otherwise your life has less meaning than a child's (who's capable of more beliefs than most adults).
Now you have show your ignorance. Evolution has no relation to 'the universe magically appearing out of nothingness'. Evolution is the theory that through genetic mutation over periods large amounts of time, life adapts to suit the environment it is in. An example: There are 20 monkeys living in a Jungle, and the only food available is a fruit encased in a hard shell. 10 of the monkeys have sharp teeth, the other 10 do not. The ten without the sharp teeth will starve, and the monkeys with the sharp teeth will not. The sharp teeth are a hereditary trait, so the species of monkey without sharp teeth will disappear, and the other species will not. In this way, animals become more complex. In our case, it was our intelligence that ensured we grew to dominate the world.
You have confused this with the Big Bang theory. If you want me to explain that, please ask.
Try and stay on point if you can. Evolutionists don't believe in the existence of God, so I may have made a mistake in saying that the theory has to do with the "beginning", but we're essentially talking about God's existence, so read between the lines and come up with a rebuttal if you can. It makes for better reading than this crap. If I call you a dickhead, do i mean that you have a dick-shaped head or do I mean that your attitude and behavior resembles that of a belligerent ignorant fool?
I wish people like you read all the posts on a debate before making your points. None of what you said haven't already been said or argued against here.
We're not at all powerful. We're just more mentally capable than other lifeforms on this planet.
We've been creating life since we existed: childbirth using our bodies. Now we're just creating viruses using lab tools.
We're capable of knowing all that our senses would allow. We're also capable of using reasoning and maths to deduce the existence of things we seemingly cannot sense.
'We've been creating life since we existed: childbirth using our bodies.' Fusing two already present sex cells is completely different to creating life from inanimate chemicals. My point was that if we can create life from simple chemicals, then such chemical reactions can and have occurred naturally, meaning that a God is not needed for life to begin on its own. The only reason people believe in God is because they do not like being unable to explain their own existence. such a fear of the unknown is akin to a child's fear of the dark. I think, as a species, we need to grow up.
How can we "grow up"? As a species, we're still infants in our knowledge of the universe! You can stop being scared of the dark when you know for sure that there isn't anything lurking in the dark... but the point is you still don't know for sure! No theories about the beginning of the universe is concrete... So you can go ahead and grow up and when you've been there in the shadows and you didn't see anything, you can come back and tell me about it... then I'll be able to stop my silly beliefs...
With all of our human intelligence, we're still so very far from even being able to create a living single-celled organism... but one day we may reach that point... and that would have taken years of research and study and using human intelligence to copy a process that evolutionists says can happen all on its own, without intelligent design at all! absurdity maximally!... now compare a single living cell to the entire universe... are you getting the picture yet? I recommend you sign up with the Theistic Evolutionist mob.
And no, we haven't created life from inanimate chemicals!!!
A virus is not a life, check out the definition of virus, and then, check out how the process of creating the synthetic virus worked. They took bits of existing DNA strands, piece them together with other existing bits using chemicals, etc... If people can somehow create something from nothingness, then they'd still be using intelligence to design something, wouldn't they? It should bring them closer to God in that case.
So far from creating a single celled organism? What do you call a virus then? See, God-heads like you believe in fairy-tales and magic tricks, so I expect a certain level of scientific ignorance, but contradicting yourself in the same sentence? That's stupid even for a Christian. Actually no it's not, that's what all Christians do. And I am aware of the latent irony of that last statement.
Life does not mean intelligence. the scientific characteristics of living things are:
Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Feeding
Excreetion
Reproduction
Growth
Irrefutably, all of these can be attributed to a virus. This is what happens when people who know nothing about science comment on science. Eventually you will start insulting your opponent, ( a la: You're so enigmatic, EnigmaticMan! Do you even understand yourself?) anyone who insults their opponent shows themself to be out of real arguments.
To summarise my entire argument on this debate:
I have seen Cells, which mutate naturally, in a process called evolution.
I have seen the stars, which are not windows into heaven, but huge nuclear fusion reactors.
I have seen electricity, which is not magic, but merely charged electrons.
I have not seen God, of whom there is no evidence, merely insistance.
Even if he does does exist, he is a mass murderer, and what kind of man would worship a murderer?
Don't comment on my swastika, Just look at my past arguments and you'll find its explanation.
Well, since you know so much about science you should know that a virus is not a living organism. Sure some people think so, but those people can speak for themselves. Don't go around quoting all these characteristics and brand them irrefutable proof that virii are living organisms. The fact is it remains debatable whether viruses (or virii) are living organisms. Acceptable lifeforms use cell division to reproduce, virii on the other hand hi-jack living cells and use the cells' structure and metabolism to make copies of themselves, they self-assemble inside those cells. They can't survive outside of a cell. They're as alive as computer programs (which are just strings of instructions) working inside a computer.
You're a perfect example of what happens when people go to school too long, it makes them think that they're better at debating than others just because they know some facts. Debating well requires you to possess the skill of reasoning, how to use those facts appropriately.
Dishing out insults, then when you receive them you cry "mummy!", if insulting you shows that I'm running out of arguments, you insulting me and then crying "mummy!" when you receive it shows that you're a sook.
I never said God murder people in mass. Is this some sort of "guilty until proven innocent" trial? Why would God care about the little microscopic beings that we are (compared with the universe) and what happens to us? God created the universe! God doesn't care if your mother doesn't give you pocket money to buy your favorite sticker!
This debate has nothing to do with your swastika, you're free to represent yourself however you like, but I'm actually personally interested in why you choose that symbol? You can tell me if you want, it doesn't matter if you don't.
1. Have you read the Bible? Specifically Exodus. That inconvenient part where God kills every first son of Egypt?
2. Knowing 'some facts' is better than being armed with scripture.
3. I did not cry 'mummy', I merely pointed out that insulting my avatar is not an argument. I have only insulted your beliefs, as I am expected to. I expect no less of you.
4. Can we drop the virus thing, it no longer has any relevance to the debate, and if their life is debatable then neither of us will resolve the argument.
5. I chose the Swastika because I am a political and Social Nazi. Why else?
1 - Right, i've probably made myself abundantly clear now that I don't actual put all my money in the Bible bank. So you quoting the bible isn't of much use. I sometimes even want to agree with you about some of the things in the Bible.
2 - I'm not backing God's existence purely based on Bible.
3 - I never commented on your swastika, so maybe you got me confused with someone else.
4 - virus thing is dropped, you actually brought it up btw.
1. So you made up your own religion and now you think its true. Made up things are called fiction, fiction is, by definition, fictional, and therefore untrue.
2. Then what are you backing it with?
3. By avatar, I meant my profile, and by extension, its name.
1 - I didn't make up any religion. I just believe in God.
2 - I'm backing my belief in God with the wonderful universe (i know it pisses people like you off when I say how the universe is wonderful and stuff) and the fact that it's completely void of chaos.
3 - You said don't comment on my swastika, that's what you said. I never did. I made fun of your name, yes. So I'd like you to be more accurate next time you make an accusation.
1 - Fair enough, but still a belief born of ignorance.
2 - Actually, the universe is wonderful. However the existence of the universe does not prove the existence of God, merely the existence of the universe.
3 - Actually, I mentioned it because I had written an argument condemning the christian God's mass murder, which would seem ironic to somebody who doesn't know the real reasons behind my swastika. It was a safeguard against anyone pointing out that apparent irony. I wasn't accusing you of anything.
1 - Fair enough, but still a belief born of ignorance
No, your view is ignorant. Your belief that God doesn't exist is unprovable, unimaginative and ignorant of the orderly universe around you. An ignorant view.
I understand as much science as you and it brings me even closer to the belief that God exists.
2 - matter could not have come from nothingness. So something must have made it. Then we have the laws and behaviors that govern how everything behave and interact. That something/someone is beyond matter and rules. Proof of God's existence.
Viruses are not actually living, because they cannot reproduce by themselves. They are really only bundles of DNA in a protein membrane that insert the DNA into other organisms so that the other organism will copy the DNA. I like the rest though...
There is absolutely zero evidence in favor of the existence of gods. Just wishful thinking, unfounded conjecture, and people afraid of admitting they're going to die one day.
I have just realized that this entire debate is pointless. Religious nuts ,a la- the opposition, closed their minds to rational thought the moment they believed the 'God Hypothesis'. The only time they will realize they are wrong is just as they die. After that who cares?
Religious nuts are more open-minded than those who just think everything appeared from nothingness. I mean at least religious nuts have an imagination! You on the other hand believe everything just materialized from NOTHINGNESS... that's how sad you are. It's just not possible.
I don't like to put down a group of people needlessly, but when you wrote:
"Religious nuts are more open-minded than those who just think everything appeared from nothingness. I mean at least religious nuts have an imagination! You on the other hand believe everything just materialized from NOTHINGNESS... that's how sad you are. It's just not possible."
You made two statements that couldn't be more opposite if you tried.
Firstly, religious people accept a faith. A faith is something that is accepted in spite of and contrary to evidence. If their religion teaches that the earth is shaped like a doughnut, then it is a required piece of dogma that the indoctrinated will believe. This is the definition of close-mindedness.
Secondly, there is nothing the least bit close-minded which follows from being nonreligious. The nonreligious CAN be close-minded, but this is unrelated to it. Further, those who accept science are basically by definition NOT close-minded. This is because sciences refuses to hold on to wrong ideas.
A final aside, it is both ironic and lamentable that you can't appreciate the maths behind the hypothesis which proposes our universe coming from nothing. The ironic part is that your beliefs about god posit that it created the universe, stars, planets, animals, waters... from nothing!
Like the nonreligious, the religious CAN also be close-minded. But they don't have to be. Religious nuts like me are open-minded enough to actually believe in both science AND the fact that the universe was created by God from magic (Theistic Evolutionists).
Maths proposing the universe coming from nothing? Whatever! It's impossible that something can come from nothing. If your definition of NOTHING is the same as our definition of GOD, then we're in agreement! And God created the universe by using magic. Don't know what that is? You can't, I can't, it's not within our limited ability. Let's just call it magic cos we just don't know.
"Religious nuts like me are open-minded enough to actually believe in both science AND the fact that the universe was created by God from magic (Theistic Evolutionists)."
That's by definition not open-mindedness. There is no positive evidence, and can never be, by definition, that god created the universe so to believe it despite objections is close-minded.
"Maths proposing the universe coming from nothing? Whatever! It's impossible that something can come from nothing."
Quantum mechanics allows for matter to pop into existence in a vacuum. This is an observed phenomenon. The matter will also then pop out of existence, returning the system to a neutral state. In a flat universe, given a near-infinite amount of time, something as vastly improbable as an entire universe popping into existence as a super-compressed singularity will approach a probability of 1.
This is my amateur understanding of a very abstruse subject.
"And God created the universe by using magic. Don't know what that is? You can't, I can't, it's not within our limited ability. Let's just call it magic cos we just don't know."
This is known as special pleading. You just set a constraint in your position: matter cannot come from nothing, ever. You then violated your own premise. You are "pleading" that god is special, above your premise. This is a logical fallacy.
Example:
Squares are defined as having four equally long sides.
I say that this five sided object is a square, because it's magical.
Being open-minded doesn't mean I have to accept your view. You can object to my belief all you want but until you can prove otherwise, you should actually join me.
quantum mechanics
Thanks, it was nice explanation, but I'm just gonna go ahead and wait for something better.
special pleading
Matter can't come from nothing, so someone must have made us. Nothing confusing about that. That dude that made matter and all the rules for the creation of the universe, he's above and beyond matter and rules.
"Being open-minded doesn't mean I have to accept your view. You can object to my belief all you want but until you can prove otherwise, you should actually join me."
I never once said that my viewpoint is an intrinsic quality of open-mindedness. I said that by definition your beliefs and act of maintaining them in the face of contrary evidence is close-minded.
"Matter can't come from nothing, so someone must have made us. Nothing confusing about that. That dude that made matter and all the rules for the creation of the universe, he's above and beyond matter and rules."
You're just going around in circles again.
If you state an absolute like "matter cannot be created or destroyed" you must hold on to that premise in order to maintain logical consistency. If you try to invoke a negation of your premise like "magic man can create matter because he's above reality and stuff" then you just contradicted yourself and either one of your statements is incorrect. In that case either matter can be created and destroyed, or magic man can make matter, but not both.
If you try to stipulate that only magic man can create matter, you must provide a theoretical framework for how this is possible. Otherwise you are not making an argument, but just asserting.
I said that by definition your beliefs and act of maintaining them in the face of contrary evidence is close-minded
Well, you haven't got any evidence to the contrary my friend, otherwise I'd have switched sides by now :) The point of it is, there's no proof God doesn't exist.
If you try to stipulate that only magic man can create matter, you must provide a theoretical framework for how this is possible. Otherwise you are not making an argument, but just asserting.
Dude, I'm human, made of matter and bound by rules, I have all but 5 feeble senses and a brain sometimes capable of humor and a few other cool abilities. I can't possibly know how magic guy made all this stuff... if somehow I was able to speak to God directly, i'd probably be too busy asking for a few extra senses (like what I have no idea) and abilities (like the ability to heal quickly and perhaps if my skeleton could be swapped with titanium it'd be really cool)... fuhgeddabowdit!
"Well, you haven't got any evidence to the contrary my friend, otherwise I'd have switched sides by now :) The point of it is, there's no proof God doesn't exist."
There doesn't need to be. For the same reason that one doesn't need to disprove leprechauns in order to invalidate them. The burden of proof rests upon you, the god-proposer. Besides the fact that your concept of god is incoherent.
"Dude, I'm human, made of matter and bound by rules, I have all but 5 feeble senses and a brain sometimes capable of humor and a few other cool abilities. I can't possibly know how magic guy made all this stuff... if somehow I was able to speak to God directly, i'd probably be too busy asking for a few extra senses (like what I have no idea) and abilities (like the ability to heal quickly and perhaps if my skeleton could be swapped with titanium it'd be really cool)... fuhgeddabowdit!"
There doesn't need to be. For the same reason that one doesn't need to disprove leprechauns in order to invalidate them. The burden of proof rests upon you, the god-proposer
Didn't you just say "in the face of contrary evidence"? Look at your previous post! Show me the evidence to the contrary!
You don't need to prove God doesn't exist? Really? You can just say that God doesn't exist? What kinda stupid debater are you?
So in a debate entitled "Do horses exist?" You can just say that horses don't exist? That's how you can just win your debate? Wow, I wish I can be a hypocrite like you and be completely oblivious about it...
"Didn't you just say "in the face of contrary evidence"? Look at your previous post! Show me the evidence to the contrary!"
I hate having to explain the obvious, but here you go:
The entire argument rests upon burden of proof. You are defending a positive proposition which means you are obligated to provide proof. Atheists represent the default position. It's like with my leprechaun example, atheists would be the people who don't believe in leprechauns because your side has only asserted the existence of leprechauns with no proof.
Anything in addition to this last point isn't even needed to cut your position down. You can tell me all the theology you want, but it all rests upon the burden of proof of your god.
Therefore, being an atheist I essentially have to do nothing to debate you or any theist because you guys (theists) are the ones making a radical claim about the universe that must be backed by equally radical evidence.
Now let's get on to the evidence against your position. You subscribe to a Christian god. Therefore I can just point out the inconsistencies in the bible, such as our ability to know that humans were not created in a garden of Eden but evolved from less complex species, that a global flood never happened and is completely impossible, that men cannot rise from the dead like Jesus was claimed to have, etc. I can point out that there are religions older than Christianity and Judaism, like Hinduism, which make the idea of your religion being the word of god silly (because why would god's religion come AFTER hundreds of ancient religions?). These types of problems make the Christian doctrine fallible, and thus cast severe doubt upon its god.
Now, if I want to disprove your god, I can't do so with evidence. Gods can't be disproven this way. But if you make claims about them that are mutually exclusive, then the god cannot exist. For example, the Christian god is described as all-knowing and allowing free will. This is a contradiction, both cannot exist simultaneously. It is also defined as all-loving but hell exist, another contradiction. It is defined as all-powerful and perfect but its creation is flawed, a contradiction.
That you believe in a Christian god despite these inconsistencies and refuse to acknowledge the evidence against you makes you close-minded.
"You don't need to prove God doesn't exist? Really? You can just say that God doesn't exist? What kinda stupid debater are you? "
See: burden of proof for positive claims.
"So in a debate entitled "Do horses exist?" You can just say that horses don't exist? That's how you can just win your debate? Wow, I wish I can be a hypocrite like you and be completely oblivious about it... "
Glad you asked and provided a real-world example.
Let's say that a debate entitled "Do horses exist?" were created. Imagine that horses weren't so common or well-known that it could be a legitimate debate question.
Those arguing against might say "we've never heard of this creature, or seen one, so we don't believe they exist."
Those arguing for the existence of horses need only provide a photograph of a horse, a video showing it walking around, etc. Then their case is made, they proved their case, unless their media were found to be faked (but we assume it isn't).
What did you do to prove the existence of your horse? You said your horse was above our ability to detect it, therefore could never be evidenced. You said your horse must exist because the universe is complicated and has order. Some people here said they know horses exist because they see it in a child's face, or feel it in their hearts.
In other words, you didn't provide your photograph or video of god.
"I've linked God to matter and order."
I've linked leprechauns to order and matter, because they must explain how matter got here. Therefore they exist.
I've never used that fact to argue for the existence of God. In fact, I've stated many times that a belief in God needs no subscription to any religion whatsoever. You're the one who can't get your head around that notion. So because you can't seem to understand that, you've gone down the wrong path to argue against my position!
Please go back a few hundred steps: I believe in God, the being that created matter and order. God is beyond matter and the laws that apply to us so God can't be sensed and thus is beyond our proof. Period.
If you assert that matter has always been there, you'll need to provide proof (because that's a positive claim).
If you assert that the laws and order that govern the universe have always been there, you'll need to provide proof for that also.
Some people here said they know horses exist because they see it in a child's face, or feel it in their hearts
That's their claim and not mine. I'll leave it up to them to argue their point. I've made the mistake of taking up someone else's position a couple of times and I don't like it.
... you didn't provide your photograph or video of god
What part of "beyond our senses and the laws that apply to us" do you have trouble with?
I've linked leprechauns to order and matter, because they must explain how matter got here. Therefore they exist.
Ummm... look up the dictionary definitions of leprechaun. Better yet, go to wikipedia.
"I've never used that fact to argue for the existence of God. In fact, I've stated many times that a belief in God needs no subscription to any religion whatsoever. You're the one who can't get your head around that notion. So because you can't seem to understand that, you've gone down the wrong path to argue against my position!"
God is a strictly religious concept. It is important to distinguish your god, the Christian one, because there are traits you assign to it that only apply to your god. There is no secular god to argue against, by definition.
"Please go back a few hundred steps: I believe in God, the being that created matter and order. God is beyond matter and the laws that apply to us so God can't be sensed and thus is beyond our proof. Period. "
Sentence number one is an assertion you have yet to provide any sort of case for.
Sentence number two defines god in such a way that the concept is meaningless, and in the realm of the toothfairy and santa.
Actually all you really just said was "I believe in god, he created the universe, and I don't got to prove nothin' so meh "
Good luck with that.
If you assert that matter has always been there, you'll need to provide proof (because that's a positive claim).
"What part of "beyond our senses and the laws that apply to us" do you have trouble with?"
So I'll just sum up your entire argument for the past couple days:
"God exists. I don't know how or why because I can't know anything about god because god is completely undetectable and may as well just be a thought in my head. But you're all completely stupid for not believing in god and using science to understand how the universe got this way, and how order comes from chaos."
"Ummm... look up the dictionary definitions of leprechaun. Better yet, go to wikipedia."
Again, you're wrong and i've given you the link to the dictionary definition of God that said nothing about religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics
This article has 9 occurrences of the word "matter", none of which supports your claim that matter has always been there.
Big Bang and Grand Unified Theory
Can you tell me which part of these theories explains how things behave in the universe? Why is there a force called gravity? Why does gravity affect things the way it does? Why does everything work the way it does? Why isn't there complete chaos and randomness? Complete chaos and randomness is what happens if there's no designer.
Leprechauns, god, same difference. All fantasy
Nope, God created the universe. Leprechaun is Irish mythology and is as real as Santa Claus, Jesus and Muhammad or whatever.
This article has 9 occurrences of the word "matter", none of which supports your claim that matter has always been there.
I didn't ask you to report the number of times "matter" occurred. I gave you the link so you would read it, specifically the information on symmetries and the laws of thermodynamics.
Can you tell me which part of these theories explains how things behave in the universe? Why is there a force called gravity? Why does gravity affect things the way it does? Why does everything work the way it does? Why isn't there complete chaos and randomness? Complete chaos and randomness is what happens if there's no designer.
Read them all. That's your answer. All you're saying is "I don't know this. I don't know that. I don't this. Ergo god."
Nope, God created the universe. Leprechaun is Irish mythology and is as real as Santa Claus, Jesus and Muhammad or whatever.
Leprechauns cannot be detected, they are magic. God cannot be detected. Magic. There is no difference between them except the stories you tell about them.
Look up God. Don't look up religion. I don't care about relition. I didn't use any religion to back up my claims of God's existence.
I didn't ask you to report the number of times "matter" occurred. I gave you the link so you would read it, specifically the information on symmetries and the laws of thermodynamics.
I didn't ask you to give me links to an article about the studies of heat. I asked you to prove that matter had always existed. Why don't you start with the Big Bang and go further back before that time: What was the mass that was to explode into a Big Bang made of? How did it get there? Why did it explode? When you do eventually come up with all the theories that tie these together, why don't you also look and see if any of them can be proven, or are they simply scientific theories that are completely open to be disproved by the theories of others. I'm going to take a wild bet and say that you can't prove matter had always existed. What a shame, because the entire world sure would like to know.
Read them all. That's your answer. All you're saying is "I don't know this. I don't know that. I don't this. Ergo god
Just like you pal, but more logical: You read all these things and understand them and say "Oh, I know how it works now, it must have designed and made itself".
I read and understand all these things and say "Cool, the designer of this thing is awesome!"
Leprechauns cannot be detected, they are magic. God cannot be detected. Magic. There is no difference between them except the stories you tell about them
Let's look at the stories then, maker of the universe VS little Irish troll.... One can be proved/disproved easily, the other is still a great mystery to all. Don't get carried away with the Christian God or the Muslim God or any other God... just the God concept.
Shame the other guy gave up. I'll give it a crack.
What was the mass that was to explode into a Big Bang made of?
Hydrogen, Lithium and Helium. Even the most basic of definitions would tell you that.
How did it get there?
That was the only place for it to be. It wasn't just created form nothing by God, because as you have said, nothing can come from nothing, therefore it was always there, since the beginning of time. Time, by definition, has always existed, thus so has the matter.
Why did it explode?
Common misconception, there was no explosion, merely expansion. A bang is not an explosion, but a sound. There was a sound, because 1% of the static in radios / television is actually the residual sound from the big bang, as observed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965. Not incidentally, the term 'Big Bang' was created by a cosmologist called Fred Hoyle as a way of belittling the theory, as he did not agree with it.
I read and understand all these things and say "Cool, the designer of this thing is awesome!"
Actually, that suggests that you do not understand them.
One can be proved/disproved easily, the other is still a great mystery to all.
Go on then, disprove the existence of leprechauns without using the term 'no evidence'.
I'm just gonna go ahead and quote one of the biggest scientists, see if you know who it is:
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Your trouble is you haven't done anything towards that goal of bangin' Angelina... perhaps you oughta stalk her to begin with .... muhahahaha
Albert Einstein, who also suggested that time-travel is somehow a by-product of speed, which is ridiculous horseshit. Time-travel is impossible, as time is just a measurement, like an inch. Besides, you are quoting a scientist who did not believe in God. You can't cherry-pick his beliefs to suit a viewpoint he disagreed with.
Now, if imagining something somehow makes it real, then I don't have to do anything towards doing A.J, as by that logic it has already happened, which it hasn't. I don't even care, it was just an example.
So if you're done quoting Atheists to support the existence of God, can we get back to you explaining why the God you made up is real?
I didn't say Einstein believed in God or not, I quoted something he said about having an imagination, which you tried to discredit.
About A.J, if your imagination about bangin' her is strong enough, you'd actually do something about that (just don't go doing something illegal though)...
People who believe in God's existence include those in the fields of sciences and everything else. They strive to understand God's work in the universe and get as close to God as possible... who knows, one day we'll all reach that goal.
can we get back to you explaining why the God you made up is real?
When you say "real" do you mean like made of matter and things like that? Because if God isn't made of matter or God is something we can not sense, how can I use my human abilities to convince another human? God is real because of the order in the universe. The universe is completely void of chaos. There is a constant, rule of behavior for everything.
No. If you look throughout history, people have believed in gods for a VERY long time. For example the ancient Greeks believed in a series of gods which we now call myths. These myths were created to give answers to some of the worlds mysteries. I personally believe that our modern God was created for the same reason.
Is it just me or is the opposition ( with the occasional exception of NVYN ) just trying to prove that God(s) exists by simply saying 'Of course he exists, how can you possibly say he doesn't?
Some quotes:
'HAHAHAHAHAAAAA.
If you'd understood his presence like I had you wouldn't even dare to make such ignorant statements.'
-Kinda
'Yeah only one God is real if you real the bible that is all you need to know that he is real because he created the world if you are a Christian and if you don't believe what I am saying just keep listing to other mens theory's.'
-silaswash
'ONE God exists for sure. BUT, there are no other GOds. My precious Heavenly Father is soooo real and has changed my life. I am on this earth to serve HIM. All other gods such as Allah, Budda, and every thing else is just a chunk of metal or gold or whatever it is. They can't think talk, incourage, Love, punish or anything. MY God is deferent. He is all of those. He lives and HE lives in my heart.'
-akcamogirl
'Yes god exists. I wasn't sure for a long time but I know that god is real. I have felt the spirit of GOD!'
-natycuevas
You see? Those were whole 'arguments'.
See, I can do it too:
My God exists for sure, because I have imagined him and then felt his presence. All other Gods are made up, because people just imagined them and then said they felt their presence.
Statements prove nothing, and if people don't understand that, then why did they join CB?
Yeah, some people just need faith. They don't have much in terms of logic and with a topic that is so far from proof such as this one, faith is going to play a major role. I just wish people were more logical when showing faith...
The debate is: Do gods exist? And my answer to this is that god is supernatural and nothing supernatural can exist in the natural world. Now why would i say that god is supernatural? Well it's because there are no evidence of his existence and if he did exist he would have go against nature and everything we know about the world.
Just because you don't understand something, don't just think of it as supernatural. Humans still don't understand lots of things, we only recently discover the existence of particles that make up electrons and protons. Those particles were not supernatural before we discover them, right?
So just because you don't understand God doesn't mean God is supernatural and doesn't exist.
If I don't understand god then how can I believe that he exists? You can't believe that something exists before you have seen proof of it, that's just ridiculous!
If people had not been told as children that god existed, then no one would know god existed. You may say that some would still sense the presence of a greater supernatural force out there. That is because they created a being in their mind to blame for their problems or bring reason for things. That people say god exists is just a being created in someone's mind aeons ago and passed from generation to generation. How come so many people believed in god back then? Because most humans were looking for something or someone to blame.
You've made a few posts without actually making any new points.
You keep saying that gods only exist in people's minds. That's not true because God exist in the evidence of his work all around us, because he created us and the universe, silly!
There is no "evidence of his work around us". And ducky is right that indoctrination is the only thing that makes us believe in gods existence. God is a mythological beast that primitive human beings invented after thousands of years of trying to understand the world but not finding answers. Now when we do understand the world god is unnecessary, there is no room for god anymore.
Indoctrination is how people persuade others to believe in a specific god, it's not how people keep the idea of god alive.
In the past, when there was no worldwide communications and tribes are isolated and so the idea of god can't just be radioed to others, people all over the world had already believed in gods. We choose to believe that someone created the universe and it didn't just happen all on its own. Nowadays, we study the universe and can explain how all the processes operate, but that doesn't exclude WHO made it all.
You see a cake and you can explain how the cake became a cake from wheat and egg and yeast and sugar and whatever else you care to throw in there, but someone still had to bake the cake. Right?
Your theory falls because there are tribes that don't believe in gods and people don't get indoctrinated never start to believe in any god and stay atheists their whole lives. Humans haven't always believed in gods, it may have started with worshipping ancestors and then it grew to worshipping gods. I really don't understand where you get this "who" from, where is he? Why can't it be a what? why do you limit yourself to a who? Who created the year 2010?
I believe that what modern and ancient humans think are gods are soime form of extra-terestrial. And because I don't feel like giving an example of my theory right now, just turn your television onto the history channel. If you watch for a consecutive 5 hour period chances are you will find on program about the ancient E.T. god theory.
No, god(s) to not exsist! God is the only higher power that exsists. We do have proof and how would you be here if their were no God?? Do you believe in the Devil? Obviously there is evil on this earth therefor there is a Devil. There is also also good natured people which represents God in some way. Without God we would not exsist.
To the scientific world at the present day, no god does not exist. To the under educated people in society who can't accept the fact that life is not easy and that no there is no after life, this is all there is... By all means yes there is a strange man floating around in the sky protecting you and your family. You Moron.
So they're fake scientists? Or are they scientists that don't work as hard as other scientists that don't believe in God? How do you define a "real" scientist?
A scientist is someone who has a logical view on the world and believes things where there is physical evidence to support a theory. God does not come into this as that is a fairy tale i read when i was 5 and that belief is wrong.
I thought scientists were people who wore thick glasses, have no hair and wear a labcoat everywhere... hmmm gotta go check out that dictionary def., here it is: An expert in science. Couldn't agree more. Didn't say anything about whether they believe in God.
A design has a designer. A Creation has a Creator. I once painted a beautiful picture and if you ask whether the painter existed or not, it would be insult to me the painter.
Second, we should try to know the purpose of our existence. Why Did God place us on the third planet from Mercury? Read this short article entitled "the purpose of life" here: http://extremelysmart.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/10/
Then you will realize that God exists and He has created us for a reason.
You are begging the question by calling it "design" and "creation" in the first place. And you define the purpose of your life, not some invisible magical super-being.
Nice try though.
(And if God placed us on the third planet from mercury we'd all by lifeless corpses on mars right now)
We are actually the second planet from Mercury, after Venus. How can you comment on the creation of the universe when you do not even know the order of the solar system?
Oh yes, let's 'forget about the details'! That is a sure way to find out the truth! Ignoring the facts and relying on superstitions! It's so clear now!
Seriously, I will convert right now if, In your inevitable refutation of this argument, you can produce one piece of irrefutable evidence to support your theory.
(And no snakes dropping leaves on statues, please.)
You've never been able to disprove God's existence, so that's you not being able to refute our claims of God's existence. If we use logic to say God exists and you can't use logic to refute that, it's pretty irrefutable to me!
That is not logic, that is a statement born of ignorance of our beginning. No-one knows what happened back then, but that is no reason to jump to the conclusion that a god created everything. If the argument is that we couldn't come from nothing, then that logic extends to God. Where did he supposedly come from then? If he or they can have been here forever, according to your logic, then why does that not extend to the universe simply always having been here?
If the argument is that we couldn't come from nothing, then that logic extends to God.
Why must it extend to God? God is omnipresent, eternal and just plain mind-blowing! So no our rules don't extend to God, God created everything so he is beyond any rules we have.
Anyone can refute an argument by saying 'It's Magic!'. Your argument about the lack of chaos and the perfection of the rules and laws of physics reads like this:
The presence of order and rules in the universe suggests that it was created by a celestial body that is subject to no rules.
My argument:
The presence of order and rules in the universe suggests that nothing can exist that is not subject to those rules.
If I have misinterpreted your theory, then please explain it fully in your impending refutation of this argument.
My point was that order did not begin, it is merely the state that the universe naturally moves towards. I said earlier that emptiness and inertia are the true state of order. The universe inexorably moves towards this, like particles in a whirling pond. They whirl around at first, because they are being worked upon by kinetic energy, but when this energy is spent, they fall to the bottom and lie still. The water stops moving, and this is a microcosm of what will happen to the universe. Suns will go out, no heat, no wind, no life; nothing.
This comes about because of the rules of the universe. Rules is, come to think of it, a poor word to use. It implies a rulemaker, whereas in reality these rules are simply properties of the things they govern. For example, the fact that iron is hard does not imply that somebody declared it so. Iron is hard because of its atomic structure. Water is naturally cold because it stores heat poorly. The sky is blue because nitrogen reflects blue light well. None of these things are rules, they are simply facts.
The entire idea of God is one born of ignorance.
We used to believe that illness was caused by spirits. Then we discovered germs. We used to believe lightning was Zeus' fury, then we discovered electricity.
We used to believe thunder was the strike of mjolnir, Thor's hammer, then we realised that it is just sound.
We have always attributed mystical properties to things that we do not understand fully. This mysticism is invariably disproved by science.
THAT is why I do not believe in God(s).
SMSdebator says that atheists believe that everything is a coincidence. Well how can every case af attributing natural occurances to God being disproved by science be a coincidence?
Your first paragraph was mildly interesting, but when you tried to get to the point in the second one, you fall apart again:
For example, the fact that iron is hard does not imply that somebody declared it so. Iron is hard because of its atomic structure
The atomic structure of all things is the result of the way all of their subatomic particles behave. Their behavior is no accident. Gravity is a curious thing, come to think of it, the other 3 fundamental interactions (or fundamental forces) are also curious... God made them. Order in the universe are explained with these 4 fundamental interactions.
.
SMCdebator has yet to mature in the processing and delivery of this thoughts.
Sadly, the only real way of showing my point is to disprove God altogether. Any analogy would have to be from the physical realm, and therefore if God existed, the analogy would be subject to those rules that you say God created.
Now, you say God is not subject to the laws of physics (or any other laws, really). But the nature of the universe shows that there are no other laws.
The universe itself always moves towards the most stable, least energetic state possible. This is simply because of energy usage. Imagine the universe as a cloud of steam. As it loses energy, it constricts and becomes water, and then Ice. Apart from the constricting ( the universe is expanding), this accurately models natural universal behaviour. The only thing that changes this is life, with its constant energy conversion, but even that is a temporary thing.
You suggest that all this was started by God. A god who is not subject to any laws...space...time..etc. This God is supposedly perfect and omnipotent-If you do not believe in a personified God, then God is the wrong term to use- and most crucially, perfect. Something perfect cannot create imperfection, by definition. Now, as I have said, the perfection physics moves towards is inertia. Yet the universe is far from inert, it is, as I have said, expanding, which suggests that it began at one centralized point. If inertia is universal perfection, then activity is imperfection. Though God is not bound by this definition of perfection, Its creation is, and therefore it is imperfect.
Thus, the universe's imperfection posits that it was not created by something perfect.
Addendum
If you do not believe in a sentient God, then use of the term God is not correct. If you believe merely in a force, then what you speak of is exactly that,a force, not a God. To clarify this, I ask if you would kindly define your God in your next argument. I, for the record, believe that the behaviour of the universe(s?) suggests that it was created by the laws that govern it. As you say, everything can not come from nothing, but therein lies the flaw in your argument. You are using the infallibility of physics to suggest that physics is fallible. If space did not exist, then what did God create it out of? You say He was all there was, but if he was not made of matter, and did not exist in space, then what did He create matter out of, and where did he put the space he put it in? Do you see my point? If nothing can come of nothing (Shakespeare, incidentally) then God could not create something from nothing, as the things He was creating are bound by that rule, even if He is not.
This God is supposedly perfect and omnipotent-If you do not believe in a personified God, then God is the wrong term to use
Ok, I'll go with the term Creator from now on to save from any more confusions.
.
This God is supposedly perfect and omnipotent
I wouldn't use the term "perfect" because it's a perceived quality and it's a subjective idea. We can neither perceive the Creator nor agree on what's perfect.
.
The idea of perfection and imperfection regarding the universe
Again, I wouldn't use the term "perfect" here. The universe functions according to the 4 fundamental interactions, however that's all we know so far. There could well be many more "fundamental interactions" that we don't know about. If a certain universal pattern/phenomenon occurs on a time scale of millions of years, that is, if each repetition/cycle of the pattern takes that long, how the heck could we know about it? We'd need to start now, and keep records for a very long time so that future generations might be able to pick up a pattern and learn something....
.
I ask if you would kindly define your God in your next argument.
My idea of a God (and I will now refer to him as the Creator) is that he simply is the creator of everything that we know of. I refuse to believe that the universe could simply be, without wilful design. Other than that, I don't know anything about the Creator due to my inability to sense or perceive him in any way.
I can't get my mind around the notion that because the universe is so infinitely large, all probabilities (including the existence of life and humans) is 1. This basically means that all and everything that we can think of and imagine physically exist somewhere. I think it's kinda silly, because that means all human imaginative creations physically exist somewhere... we just have to cross path with them in the same time and space!
I wouldn't use the term "perfect" because it's a perceived quality and it's a subjective idea. We can neither perceive the Creator nor agree on what's perfect.
Knowledge of what perfection is is not necessary. Anything that changes cannot be perfect. Perfection cannot give rises to imperfection, else it would not be perfect. As the universe constantly changes, it cannot be called perfect. Thus, it could not have been created by something perfect. This removes the possibility of a 'God'. As I said before, all of your arguments have been in favor of a seminal force, but offered no proof of a sentient creator. The 'science' you have been using suggests that this would merely be energy.
Electromagnetism, Gravitation and Strong/Weak reactions have no relevance to my last argument. Perfection can only be 1. Any variance is imperfect, like 1.1 and 0.9. Anything that is perfect would have to be inert, and never change, else it would be giving rise to imperfection. Thus, perfection is impossible, reinforcing my point that a perfect, sentient God is also impossible.
Referring to your fascination with the 4 FF's, the universe is only amazing to you because you have evolved to find it amazing. At the start, it was no larger than an atom. It was only because of the celebrated FF's that it became what we see now.
I can't get my mind around the notion that because the universe is so infinitely large, all probabilities (including the existence of life and humans) is 1.
Hitch-Hiker's Guide to The galaxy?
Right, the probability of 1 being equal to 2 is 0.
0 by 1 (universe) = 0. 0 by 200 million (galaxies) = 0
Some things are just impossible, whether or not someone imagines them.
Anything possible within the laws of physics is probably extant. Before probability you must deal with possibilty.
Besides, I thought your 'Creator' exists outside the laws of physics, and even outside the universe (S,M and T), so that argument does not apply. In fact, that theory does more to prove the existence of leprechauns than it does God.
I actually appreciate your explanation of the idea of perfection and imperfection as it sounds pretty cool! I'd just like to say, though, that I don't know if the Creator is perfect according to this definition (and never claimed it). If I've ever referred to perfection in this discussion, I'm using the meaning of "wow, everything works so well together and is amazing". So if that's the case, your definition of perfection's no longer relevant in our discussion. In fact, if I want to continue to uphold the fact that a Creator created this universe, I'll have to argue that he is in fact, imperfect according to your explanations, which I'd be happy to do...
.
the universe is only amazing to you because you have evolved to find it amazing
Whether or not I find it amazing doesn't negate my belief in a Creator that designed the whole thing, because I'm basing this belief on the likelihood that it was designed and not accidental (instead of on whether it was amazing or not amazing).
.
Some things are just impossible, whether or not someone imagines them
When I say "I can't get my mind around the fact..." what I mean is I don't believe it. The notion that things exist and evolve on their own and is possible because the universe is so infinitely large is BS, to me. The Creator designed it all I'm afraid :)
I'm basing this belief on the likelihood that it was designed and not accidental
Well, looking at the universe and the way it functions, it seems that design is very unlikely. I believe things only when I have seen evidence of their existence. Assumptions are dangerous, and belief in god is a massive assumption that people make because they are unable or unwilling to understand why the scientific method is the only way of reaching the truth. Blaming everything on a God is the easy route, taken by people who do not wish to face the truth that there is no smiling, guiding father figure and that their existence has no real meaning to the universe. People like that always look for the easy route, the one that requires the least intellectual activity. 'Everything was created by God, who cannot be understood, so let's not bother trying to understand it and go back to watching the Simpsons'.
The notion that things exist and evolve on their own and is possible because the universe is so infinitely large is BS
As I have said, the universe is not infinite. If it was, the existence of God would be definite, but as it is finite there simply is no room for God. If he exists outside space then he does not exist, as there is nothing outside the universe, which is why it is called the universe. Unfortunately, all of my own attempts (and those of many others) at using science and logic to convince you that God does not exist have failed. I do not believe that this is my own fault, merely a result of either your inability to understand, or a simple perversity on your part to leave your head where it is - in the sand.
How can you call evolution bullshit when all paleontological finds support it? We found dinosaurs at one up to living up to 65 million years ago (when presumably a meteor killed them all), but no humans. Humans didn't arrive until 2m years ago. Does this imply that God stepped in and put us there? Why then, have we found skeletons of the semi-human Australopithecus predating our existence, and none after it? Did we manage to kill everything that resembled us in any way in the first year of our existence? Or, did they simply evolve into us?
I have decided to wash my hands of this debate. I have neither the time, nor the energy to continue to argue with such a ship of fools. If you wish to go on believing in your Sky-Bully then by all means, stare at the sky and wonder at how impossible everything seems to be. Gamble through the land, singing praises to the stars.
The rest of us will be busy figuring out how to get to them.
Assumptions are dangerous, and belief in god is a massive assumption that people make because they are unable or unwilling to understand why the scientific method is the only way of reaching the truth.
Most scientific theories are built on assumptions that are based on observations of the natural world.
Blaming everything on a God is the easy route, taken by people who do not wish to face the truth that there is no smiling, guiding father figure and that their existence has no real meaning to the universe. People like that always look for the easy route, the one that requires the least intellectual activity.
The scientific method does not exclude belief in a Creator. Many famous scientists believe in a Creator.
How can you call evolution bullshit when all paleontological finds support it?
Correction, I never said evolution was bullshit. If you've read some of my other posts you'd see that I actually said that evolution is a process of creation, meaning that the Creator didn't just pull humans out of thin air but rather subjected everything to the process of evolution and formation.
If you wish to go on believing in your Sky-Bully then by all means, stare at the sky and wonder at how impossible everything seems to be. Gamble through the land, singing praises to the stars. The rest of us will be busy figuring out how to get to them
Not if I beat you to them first! You see, God's going to help me ;)
You are all falling to an emotional construct. I know you WANT to believe in a god, and so do I. However, I want to believe in the truth more than that. Religion is an unmoral, evil thing (and I know, morals are emotional too, but you have to stop somewhere), that greedy people have exploited throughout history. Think of the Crusades, the pogroms or the Holocaust, and the martyrdom of modern Islam. It is one of the most obviously hypocritical things on Earth, and the notion of a god is not scientific. I.E. it is not possible to prove or disprove it. If you want to have faith in something, have faith in kindness, love, and charity. All the things that religion pretends to stand for.
Although the vast majority of mankind believes in a creator or Supreme Being, their concepts vary.
Islam, in the Quran, affirms the existence and Oneness of the creator and describes him as having the most perfect attributes thus enabling man to have the proper concept of him and to establish a strong bond with him based on the understanding of his sublime attributes. But the influence of philosophy and other ideas that are alien to God existence led to the emergence of distorted concepts about God (Alaah).
(Yea, the same that) has made for you the earth (like a carpet) spread out, and has made for you roads (and channels) therein, in order that ye may find guidance (on the way);That sends down (from time to time) rain from the sky in due measure;- and We raise to life therewith a land that is dead; even so will ye be raised (from the dead);-That has created pairs in all things, and has made for you ships and cattle on which ye ride, In order that ye may sit firm and square on their backs, and when so seated, ye may celebrate the (kind) favor of your Lord, and say, "Glory to Him Who has subjected these to our (use), for we could never have accomplished this (by ourselves),
Science is the only objective way of measuring things. Science is the use of the scientific method in order to test out ideas we may have. In order to that something happens (pr exists) using science you have to be able to test for it. Since God is a spiritual and cannot be tested using physical methods the existence of God cannot be proved using science. Since the burden of proof to show that something exists is on the affirmative and, since this burden cannot be met we have to assume --that until physical evidence of God is found-- that God(s) does not exist.
In science nothing is ever seen as fact as much as fiction, it is the THEORY of gravity not the fact of gravity.
Also people can be agnostic atheists (not knowing if their is a god but not thinking their is) or a theist atheist (not knowing if their is a god, but believing their is)
If there was a God, cruel things to innocent people would never happen the way they do. Therefore there is no God. Besides, Evolution holds way more evidence of scientific existence then the bible.
I will answer with a tipical phrase I´m usually to answer.
Adults with imaginary friends are stupid.
Sorry if I hurt someones felling but to believe blindly that a invisible, omnipotent, omniconscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, maker-of-everything based on a single book is merely stupid.
I do however understand the reasons that lead to this, humans have the need to believe their existence is important. Not just important but part of a grand plan. We (human beings) have the need to have a reason to behave ourselfs properly and we use religion as that excuse.
The bad part is that religion in fact is the worst kind of scum there is. They tortured countless people over times, killed, rapped. They did things that are almost inimaginable to most of us. And yet you do support these kind of people? You have the cheapface to defend another people who stood beside proudly with Hittler and Stalin? Who rapped woman tho "purify those animals"? Who slain people because they were "heretics"? Who killed countless childreen in front of their famillys because they were "sons of lucifer"?
Don´t you even dare do defend these people. Don´t you dare do defend these genocides. Even God is a genocide. In "the holy book" your "good father" kills aproximatly 284.638.059 human beings directly or inderectly. Satan "the source of all evil" kills one with the consent of God.
If it´s this you´re gonna stand for you´re even worse than them.
I dont think GODS exist but i know that there is only one GOD! You think that this universe was created by itself due to some mumbo jumbo, honestly i dont believe thats possible because there has to be some one to initiate it all. If you want to prove your points then do proper research, go through the basic concepts of every religion such as islam learn the deeper meaning behind all what muslims do. The book known as Quran has remained unchanged since it was revealed, it has indications revealations far beyond our comprehension and cannot be fragmented by human minds. How can a book so old be so advanced at the same time? answer is simple, its creator is not an ordinary creation but a being superior to us in every aspect! so yes my god does exist without any partners that is.
For thousands of years religion has shown it's head and caused pain and suffering and fear to many people. Believing in a god makes you delusional, it's been proven time and time again.
But for me, what happens at the end of the day matters to me. If Christians want to send money to Africa to help starving children because "God" told them to, then be my guest.
I dont believe in a God because their is absolutlely no proof. People believe in god (note i did not capitilize god) because they are brainwashed when they are young. I have gone to Catholic school all my life and it saddens me to see the people brainwashed by the religion classes. They will just believe anything the bible says when their is no proof and it constantly contradicts itself and more than half of it is made up anyway.
how can he and where is the proof don't give me the he has to kill people sometimes i know people who believed in god who died of heart attacks that is just cruel how could anyone do that even a "god" no way can anyone or thing be up there if there is give ME SOME PROOF! the bible was probably written by some drunk funny guy deciding to prank people , well it did and everyone believe the Church's lies!
first of all, who the heck created the word 'GOD'?
I believe it's ancient people who created the word 'god'. they believe in gods coz they had no idea how this world/universe was created. now that we got the 'big bang' theory...u all know that dontcha? if god created the universe/whatever, it's just illogical, where did he get the stuffs needed to create the universe?. perhaps god-believers will say it as a miracle...
WTF?
up till now, every single thing that exists in this world (whatever it is) can be explained by science... if god wants us to believe him.why doesn't he create 'miracle' again??? like in the past?
Alright I'm sorry but there is a truth to this. There is over 6 million gods worshipped by all different kinds of religions and countries. plus all things children believe in which could make 1 billion other gods that could be believed in. Some think there's only one God and others think theirs many. 1st off if their was multiple gods it would end in war because the definition of a god is to have supernatural powers of Creation.. And Destruction Two forces that are apart of what people or any possible living thing does a day. And if someone would to be a god of destruction that's all that God would know and would destroy anything that was created so the creator would eventually would lose what he created. Which is confused for life and death which makes no sense because of a spiritual realm that many believe which would go against a religion like Hindi, or something in that area that believes in reincarnation. In that case if there was a god or gods why would they give us a different thing to believe in. Most would say because of language but guess what, we weren't born with language. We made language. So if god was the creator of everything that we see today and could see how could he tell us possibly the truth if he never knew how we communicate. And if so why us? There's thousands of species on this planet plus those we haven't discovered, yet the whole universe and everything beyond the universe. All we are, are animals just more advanced with communication and thumbs that's all we have. Plus in his image? That makes no sense because if he created everything but was not in a physical realm he would be air. He wouldn't have any shape. 2nd of all if we were ment to kill and eat animals for survival why would he or they give animals the ability to suffer, in their world a god would be evil because it's inferior. And if you would look at it in another species eyes like a chimp. Like something like us. What if they were chosen and we weren't but we would still have our knowledge. We'd be just like the animals and ment to be hunted and slaughtered for the superiors joy. That would make a god In your eyes evil and wouldn't bring any good. Which makes it valid that physically And mentally It Don't Make Any Sense Whatsoever Why A God would Exist. Because no matter what and no matter how perfect. What ever choice is like controlling a game Russian Roulette but knowing who's gonna die. Because no matter the choice someone's getting hurt and that's not what you want to believe but a god cannot possibly make a perfect decision without making someone hurt. Because evil or not a god shouldn't give what has been created to destruction because that's what in people believe is hell. And to one who feeds which is evil Is evil. making what everyone believes is a false statement and will never be proven. One more thing about spiritual. If those who would be given away by a god to destruction how in any possible situation would a fucking soul get stuck in our plain of existences after a choice of a god that supposably the creators of the universe that are both in favor of something? They wouldn't let it slip away. Lol all we are, are a connection to the mind that is captured in a physical realm. And that's all we can get physically get from.