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.
God exists in the minds of some people, and the people interact with the world with this belief. They do things that they wouldn't have done, or they don't do things that they would have done, had they not believed in a God. So, in a sense, God does exist for both the people that believe in God, and the people that are effected by the people's belief in God.
God exists in the minds of some people, and the people interact with the world with this belief. They do things that they wouldn't have done, or they don't do things that they would have done, had they not believed in a God. So, in a sense, God does exist for both the people that believe in God, and the people that are effected by the people's belief in God.
Acting on behalf of an idea doesn't make that idea exist, not even in the least.
To highlight the flaw in your reasoning, let's try:
The Tooth Fairy exists in the minds of some people, and the people interact with the world with this belief. They do things that they wouldn't have done, or they don't do things that they would have done, had they not believed in a Tooth Fairy. So, in a sense, The Tooth Fairy does exist for both the people that believe in The Tooth Fairy, and the people that are effected by the people's belief in The Tooth Fairy.
The Tooth Fairy exists in the minds of some people, and the people interact with the world with this belief. They do things that they wouldn't have done, or they don't do things that they would have done, had they not believed in a Tooth Fairy. So, in a sense, The Tooth Fairy does exist for both the people that believe in The Tooth Fairy, and the people that are effected by the people's belief in The Tooth Fairy.
This makes sense to me.
My point is that even if God doesn't actually exist, and God is nothing more than a figment of people's imaginations, God still has power through people to do God-like things... such as not-exist but still change the universe as if he does. Even the tooth fairy does this, and Santa Clause. They might not actually exist, but the belief in them causes changes in reality that suggest they do exist. Teeth under pillows, cookies by a fireplace, letters to Santa.
I think that's enough to merit the existence of something, to see the effects of it's existence. Scientists do this all the time... "There's a distortion of the path of light from this cluster of stars, as if the light is bending around some sort of super-massive object that doesn't emit light itself... I believe it's a black hole because of the effects of light around this point in space."
Even if it's not "God" that is the cause for the change, and it's just belief itself... God is a type of belief because certain results come from the belief in God that don't come from believing in the tooth fairy.
My point is that even if God doesn't actually exist, and God is nothing more than a figment of people's imaginations, God still has power through people to do God-like things... such as not-exist but still change the universe as if he does. Even the tooth fairy does this, and Santa Clause. They might not actually exist, but the belief in them causes changes in reality that suggest they do exist. Teeth under pillows, cookies by a fireplace, letters to Santa.
This statement is so wrong that it takes the words out from me.
People exist. They operate based on ideas. Their actions do not make their ideas real. It's as simple as that. You're conflating the imagination with people. People are not proxies of what is imagined.
I think that's enough to merit the existence of something, to see the effects of it's existence. Scientists do this all the time... "There's a distortion of the path of light from this cluster of stars, as if the light is bending around some sort of super-massive object that doesn't emit light itself... I believe it's a black hole because of the effects of light around this point in space."
I'll refute your argument in a simple proposition.
Imagine the following:
9-3=57
Now draw it in real life.
As expected, you are wrong. Your imagining of this equation did not make it real, reality instead asserted itself upon you and refuted you.
You can try it again.
Imagine throwing a rock and as it leaves your hand it stays motionless in mid-air.
If you try this in reality it will fail.
Reality refutes your imagination again.
Science works by observing reality and making inferences based upon reality and how it behaves. It does not concern itself with the imagination because the imagination is by definition unreal.
i believe brad meant in a philosophical sense, or a mental sense, but i believe were meant to be talking about physical proof, so his statements are unrelated to this debate, i could be wrong though and i apologies if i am
If God is only a figment of imagination He has more power over billions of people worldwide (including you) than most REAL objects. Something so powerful in the minds of man should have some grounding in reality.
IF God is a figment of imagination.
To those who search for the Truth, we know He does exist.
You are right about one thing, the meme "God" is quite powerfull and polarising. But one of the center descriptions of God is that he is all-powerfull. I would say the idea of God, compaired to the idea of lets say... Sex :)
god does not exist. It is figment of someone (who wrote the fairy tale called the bible)'s imagination. And he told his fairy tale so graphically that people believed it.
One, that is not an argument, but an arrogant, blind opinion slagging off people who have had broken hearts healed by a loving God (and don't do the whole 'natural disasters, starving childre' thing its really boring.) Another point how can someone write a 'fairy tale' so historically accurate in that time, so similar to the big ban gin Genesis when they had no idea what the heck happened exept God. And, it was written by LOADS of people. Not just one.
There is no evidence that god exists. Seeing is believing. If he exists then why doesn't he come down to earth and show himself to us. If he exists then why does he allow millions of innocents to be killed. If he exists and has all these majestic superpowers, then why doesn't he do something about wars. Instead, he, if he exists at all, just sits around and treats the whole thing as an over elaborate joke. If he exists then why doesn't he do something about poverty and suffering. If he exists then he would care and something would be done. Nothing has been done. Therefore not only does he not exist but is also a mass murderer and an implacable nazi sadist. god does not exist. End of story.
I'm actually more inclined to side with the Matt Dillahunty school of atheism - as I think it's the most apt description of atheism, in practice. That is, atheism is not the the opposite of belief: disbelief. It is only the rejection of a claim.
When you disbelieve something, however, you are rejecting its claim.
Yes, no and not necessarily. I'll use judicial proceedings as an example. If you are a juror in a criminal case, in which a defendant has been charged with murder. Is it possible for you to believe the prosecution's claim of guilt and reject the claim at the same time? Yes, if the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond doubt the guilt of the defendant, you, in fact, have to reject the claim regardless of your belief in its truth. Think of the OJ Simpson trial in the mid 90s.
I can also disbelieve a claim I simultaneously accept. Same OJ trial. I disbelieve that he was "not guilty", but I accept the claim because there was insufficient evidence to actually find him in guilt. So, I can both believe a claim I have rejected and disbelieve a claim that I accept. Granted, I can certainly disbelieve and reject a claim just as easily.
Because there is insufficient evidence to support the claim: god exists, I have no grounds to accept it and must therefore reject it.
Why reject a claim that is by definition unable to be disproven?
Because we do it all the time, it's just they we've been conditioned to grant "god" a special place above critical thinking.
If someone tells you that invisible ghosts are attacking him, do you not dismiss his claim?
If someone says that invincible space pirates are coming to earth, do you not laugh at him?
If someone told you that a mummified hand he has grants wishes if you ask it to in prayer, and really really believe in it, would you not reject his claim?
So why should you grant the benefit of the doubt to the claim that some abstract god exists that creates universes? The person should either present evidence or be dismissed. Put up or shut up as it's called.
If someone tells you that invisible ghosts are attacking him, do you not dismiss his claim?
No, I wouldn't.
What is there is the 0.00001% chance that he's right?
Sure, you may not believe in the existence of such, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
There have been many thousands - perhaps even millions - of people who have claimed to see a ghost. Psychical societies have volume after volume of sightings; there have been many an odd occurrence which has been attributed to poltregeists.
Sure, you may say that eyewitness testimony is unreliable; but, if 1,000,000 people witnessed a murder and identified the killer, he would be convicted.
If someone says that invincible space pirates are coming to earth, do you not laugh at him?
No, I wouldn't.
Hundreds of millions of people have seen what they could only describe as a 'UFO'. That's a pretty hefty portion of the earth's population; are they all delusional? From the perspective of a person who does not believe in aliens, then those hundreds of millions of people are. However, that does not mean that those hundreds of millions of people are wrong simply because one is so pigheaded as to think that he knows more than those millions of people.
While 'invincible space pirates' may seem far-fetched, that does not mean that they are invincible or that they are pirates. That may be the only way the person has to describe it.
What is there is the 0.00001% chance that he's right?
Sure, you may not believe in the existence of such, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
Right. So did he provide you with evidence that made his claim credible?
There have been many thousands - perhaps even millions - of people who have claimed to see a ghost. Psychical societies have volume after volume of sightings; there have been many an odd occurrence which has been attributed to poltregeists.
Maybe, but did he provide evidence of it applying to him? People attack each other all the time but if a person comes to you saying that people are attacking him, you validate the claim by seeing if anyone is coming after him, if he is breathing heavily, if he has bruises, etc.
Hundreds of millions of people have seen what they could only describe as a 'UFO'. That's a pretty hefty portion of the earth's population; are they all delusional? From the perspective of a person who does not believe in aliens, then those hundreds of millions of people are. However, that does not mean that those hundreds of millions of people are wrong simply because one is so pigheaded as to think that he knows more than those millions of people.
So did he provide evidence of his claim? Anything tangible that doesn't make him appear delusional? For example photographs or video of the aliens (not a alien, but the aliens coming to earth as per his claim).
While 'invincible space pirates' may seem far-fetched, that does not mean that they are invincible or that they are pirates. That may be the only way the person has to describe it.
Correct, I was using language to make it unlikely.
Then enough of these 'does God exist' debates.
Tell that to some hundred million or so people who demand them.
What evidence could one collect for a ghost? They do not leave forensic evidence, if that's what you're asking, only sightings.
If they can be seen, then they operate within the rules of the electromagnetic force, and spectrum.
Therefore they must leave some sort of footprint behind.
Sightings and photographs is all one can expect from an apparition.
So he can't capture one?
Pictures and eyewitness reports.
Similar to the above, these must meet standards of scepticism.
Nearly everybody is delusional, according to your beliefs.
Sad isn't it? Imagine having to reflect on that for a moment, that most of the society you live in is in some way mentally unsound.
Yet you participate in them more than most others, shaming people for their beliefs.
Call it boredom. Call it fascination at really bad reasoning.
Of course, I remember your perspective, and how unreasonable a person like me appears to that mindset. The biggest feeling I had back then was this sense of "why isn't it [our evidence] good enough for you?" followed by "you explain away all the mystery of life using words like coincidence and hallucination."
If they can be seen, then they operate within the rules of the electromagnetic force, and spectrum.
Perhaps they are not of this dimension? Perhaps, they got 'caught' somehow partially in their dimension, partially in ours? (this would be a non-supernatural argument for their existence).
If they are caught between dimensions, would they be on earth enough to leave a footprint?
So he can't capture one?
Tell me how.
Similar to the above, these must meet standards of scepticism.
Even for hundreds of millions of eyewitnesses?
Sad isn't it?
Du bist wahnhafte
Imagine having to reflect on that for a moment, that most of the society you live in is in some way mentally unsound.
Perhaps there is no such thing as mentally sound, but rather normalcy. Anybody who goes beyond society's expectation of normalcy is, therefore, insane and delusional.
Clint Eastwood made a film, based on a true story, called Changeling. The woman was sent to a mental facility (cf. nuthouse) because the child they gave her was not her missing son, but a different child altogether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders).
Now, the only person who actually knew what they were talking about was sent to a psychiatric ward !
What makes you think that the people who are there now deserve to be there?
You seem to be of the belief that only stupid people can possibly believe in God. Therefore, I must ask you, were the following people idiots?
Robert Boyle
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
William James Sidis
Carl Jung
Isaac Newton
Galileo
Michelangelo
Juhann Gutenberg
James Watt
Blaise Pascal
Alexander Fleming
Beethoven
One of the most common arguments against religion that I find on here is that people who are religious have lower IQs.
Then, why is it that most of the smartest people to have ever lived believed in the existence of a God? While not all in the Christian God, such as Sidis, many did believe in a higher power.
Perhaps they are not of this dimension? Perhaps, they got 'caught' somehow partially in their dimension, partially in ours? (this would be a non-supernatural argument for their existence).
If they are caught between dimensions, would they be on earth enough to leave a footprint?
Extradimensional space is still in the realm of conjecture. Hypotheses have only just begun to surface which could test for the existence of it.
So I wouldn't advise making ad hoc explanations involving extra dimensions. At this stage you'd need to provide mathematical theory supporting the idea, and hypotheses which could test for its existence in the LHC.
Tell me how.
I can't. The object isn't defined in a way that would allow me to make such predictions.
Even for hundreds of millions of eyewitnesses?
Mass hysteria, and hallucinations have occurred. Individual reports have a reputation of being unreliable. So therefore if you're prepared to investigate eyewitness accounts, you have to wade through them.
Du bist wahnhafte
Luegen! Der Welt ist verrueckt.
Perhaps there is no such thing as mentally sound, but rather normalcy. Anybody who goes beyond society's expectation of normalcy is, therefore, insane and delusional.
This reminds me of what my Sociology instructor said nine years ago "We all have dysfunctional families, what matters is how dysfunctional."
In any case you're wrong, because consensus doesn't define reality. If the world agreed that sacrificing a child every Tuesday was sane, that wouldn't make it so.
Now, the only person who actually knew what they were talking about was sent to a psychiatric ward !
What makes you think that the people who are there now deserve to be there?
I imagine that I am unqualified to give an opinion, being that I'm not a psychiatrist. However since I don't want to cop out, I imagine that each person in the institution gets there by being a threat to himself.
You seem to be of the belief that only stupid people can possibly believe in God. Therefore, I must ask you, were the following people idiots?
No. I don't believe that. I believe I said that believers can be stupid, but it's demonstrably untrue that only stupid people become religious. The fact seems to be that the more intelligent you are, while being religious, the harder it is to convince you otherwise, because you'll find more and more tenuous and elaborate justifications for believing. The people you listed were not stupid, but they all had wrong reasons for believing.
One of the most common arguments against religion that I find on here is that people who are religious have lower IQs.
That's incorrect. The case is that statistically religion is associated with lower IQs but that is for populations, it doesn't mean a religious person is unintelligent, but instead that they will tend to not identify as religious.
Then, why is it that most of the smartest people to have ever lived believed in the existence of a God? While not all in the Christian God, such as Sidis, many did believe in a higher power.
I don't really think you can make such a claim. Besides the problem of sampling intelligent people in the world (many of them are unnoticed), the religions intelligent people identify with are often heterodox, so you have to remember that getting accurate results isn't so easy.
Besides, it misses the point that smart people believing in something doesn't make it so.
So I wouldn't advise making ad hoc explanations involving extra dimensions. At this stage you'd need to provide mathematical theory supporting the idea, and hypotheses which could test for its existence in the LHC.
I was simply trying to give you a possible non-supernatural explanation for ghosts.
I can't. The object isn't defined in a way that would allow me to make such predictions.
Then don't expect me to.
Mass hysteria, and hallucinations have occurred. Individual reports have a reputation of being unreliable. So therefore if you're prepared to investigate eyewitness accounts, you have to wade through them.
Individual reports. What about cases where an entire town sees something?
Luegen! Der Welt ist verrueckt.
The sign of a crazy man.
This reminds me of what my Sociology instructor said nine years ago "We all have dysfunctional families, what matters is how dysfunctional."
I've said the exact same thing on other sites.
If the world agreed that sacrificing a child every Tuesday was sane, that wouldn't make it so.
Who defines sanity?
I imagine that I am unqualified to give an opinion, being that I'm not a psychiatrist. However since I don't want to cop out, I imagine that each person in the institution gets there by being a threat to himself.
Or a threat to a corrupt cops by showing the society that the police is corrupt. If you have the power, you can do anything you want to anybody - no questions asked; which is what I believe Eastwood has been trying to show throughout his career. I haven't any idea how he stumbled on to a real-life example, but I am glad that he did. By doing to, he had exemplified what I've long tried to convince people.
The people you listed were not stupid, but they all had wrong reasons for believing.
Says an atheist.
That's incorrect. The case is that statistically religion is associated with lower IQs but that is for populations, it doesn't mean a religious person is unintelligent, but instead that they will tend to not identify as religious.
PungSviti always makes the 'religiosity and intelligence' claim.
I don't really think you can make such a claim.
I just did.
Besides, it misses the point that smart people believing in something doesn't make it so.
I did not say that, it was a rebuttal to the common 'religiosity and intelligence'.
Individual reports. What about cases where an entire town sees something?
I expect you'd interview the town and look for inconsistencies in their reports. Then you'd look for an explanation that fits their description.
The sign of a crazy man.
No, a crazy world. Pray you never have to see it. It's really really sick.
Who defines sanity?
I suppose the sane people would, wouldn't they? Where sanity describes a healthy mind and insanity describes a dysfunctional one. A dysfunctional one being a mind that is troubled by problems that don't exist, for example.
Or a threat to a corrupt cops by showing the society that the police is corrupt. If you have the power, you can do anything you want to anybody - no questions asked; which is what I believe Eastwood has been trying to show throughout his career. I haven't any idea how he stumbled on to a real-life example, but I am glad that he did. By doing to, he had exemplified what I've long tried to convince people.
That's an important life lesson. Our rights and liberties as individuals are only conditional on whether the reigns on the powerful and corrupt are being held.
Says an atheist.
I would have gone with "says reality" actually.
PungSviti always makes the 'religiosity and intelligence' claim.
I don't however. It's not a very useful argument, because if you're trying to call a person stupid for believing, it doesn't work (population versus individual) and if you're trying to say that religion makes people stupid, it doesn't work (stupid people are drawn to religion, not the other way around).
I expect you'd interview the town and look for inconsistencies in their reports. Then you'd look for an explanation that fits their description.
Truth is subjective. Everybody will have a different story because everybody sees things in a different manner. While some people may remember that a thief has green eyes but can't say his hair color, others may remember his hair color and not even his gender.
No, a crazy world. Pray you never have to see it. It's really really sick.
Pray? Now you are encouraging my theism?
You are crazy. My family is crazy. My neighbors are crazy. Every person in the world, with the sole exception of myself, is crazy.
However, who gives the 'authorities' the power to institutionalize those who differ from normalcy?
I suppose the sane people would, wouldn't they?
How do they know that they are sane? Why does their idea of sanity need to be the only one?
Where sanity describes a healthy mind and insanity describes a dysfunctional one.
What if a dysfunctional mind is actually the most functional?
Take the stereotypical 'mad genius'. One would theorize that his extreme memory/knowledge has become to much for him, resulting in 'insanity'. What, then, is insanity? Surely such a person as this is intellectually superior to his fellow man, but what if that intellectual superiority breeds mental superiority - rather than the supposed inferiority?
A dysfunctional one being a mind that is troubled by problems that don't exist, for example.
Truth is subjective. Everybody will have a different story because everybody sees things in a different manner. While some people may remember that a thief has green eyes but can't say his hair color, others may remember his hair color and not even his gender.
I think you mean to conclude that truth is objective, but our accounts are subjective.
You answered your question, by the way. This is why personal accounts are almost never accepted as scientific evidence. Way too unreliable.
Pray? Now you are encouraging my theism?
You are crazy. My family is crazy. My neighbors are crazy. Every person in the world, with the sole exception of myself, is crazy.
I don't think I'm crazy. I may maintain contrary perspectives at the same time, shout at myself, and laugh in public places spontaneously, but that's eccentricity not craziness.
Of course, like you, I still find everyone else crazy, mainly because they disagree with me and I'm usually right.
However, who gives the 'authorities' the power to institutionalize those who differ from normalcy?
We do, as citizens and tax payers.
How do they know that they are sane? Why does their idea of sanity need to be the only one?
Generally it helps to have consistent definitions, and remember that as a non-psychiatrist this is a hard question to answer. I would guess that having a view of reality that is inconsistent with reality is the sign of a start towards insanity. I could be wrong however.
Take the stereotypical 'mad genius'. One would theorize that his extreme memory/knowledge has become to much for him, resulting in 'insanity'. What, then, is insanity? Surely such a person as this is intellectually superior to his fellow man, but what if that intellectual superiority breeds mental superiority - rather than the supposed inferiority?
I believe insanity would be the point when he makes a replica of his deceased daughter and dotes over her, or when he constantly thinks someone is out to get him, or that inanimate objects are talking to him. These types of things. We can't fault a genius for being exceptional, it's the breaks from reality that are disturbing.
What if the problems actually do exist?
Then the mind isn't dysfunctional.
Good. I like you better every day.
Scary, I'd better ask my tetraodonts how to proceed with this.
...
They seem to think you're okay, but demand more worms.
You answered your question, by the way. This is why personal accounts are almost never accepted as scientific evidence. Way too unreliable.
No, I did not. I stated that people will remember different things about an object/person - but not that those memories are wrong.
I don't think I'm crazy. I may maintain contrary perspectives at the same time, shout at myself, and laugh in public places spontaneously, but that's eccentricity not craziness.
That's not what I meant. In my opinion, everybody and anybody who is not me is crazy. I should imagine that you find even the person most similar to you to be slightly 'whacky'.
I know eccentricities; if you actually did those things they'd be mild compared to me.
I used to save EVERYTHING. I had drawers filled with scraps of cardboard! I've advanced since then, but I remain eccentric.
mainly because they disagree with me and I'm usually right.
Arrogant, too. I'm never wrong, and if you always disagree with me, you therefore must always be wrong.
I would guess that having a view of reality that is inconsistent with reality is the sign of a start towards insanity. I could be wrong however.
Who is to say that the common view of reality is the appropriate one? This is why I've never been for institutionalization unless they have killed somebody, and demonstrated the likeliness of doing so again. Other than that, they should be in prison.
I believe insanity would be the point when he makes a replica of his deceased daughter and dotes over her,
That could be construed as a sign of fatherly affection, or out of respect for his daughter.
We can't fault a genius for being exceptional, it's the breaks from reality that are disturbing.
What is reality?
P.S. This quote by Jung goes well with most of the argument:
"If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool. "
No, I did not. I stated that people will remember different things about an object/person - but not that those memories are wrong.
It's not about the wrongness of the memories, but the utility of the reports in a scientific paper when they contradict each other.
I used to save EVERYTHING. I had drawers filled with scraps of cardboard! I've advanced since then, but I remain eccentric.
How about collecting harddrives because you fill them up with music, video, and photos you never watch but can't delete. You meticulously organise data, always looking for a better scheme, but because you have terabytes you always evolve your scheme faster than you can apply it.
You collect everything that has to do with knowledge, spend hours a day just reading facts and numbers trying to soak it all in. Languages are a collectible like figurines. And did I mention that you never can finish a project because your mind works faster than your hands. You stay up nights because you have all these idea you can't keep up with, stuff like that. Great fun.
Do you collect genetic samples of your animals for storage using a meticulous file set? What about your friends and family, do you collect genetic samples from them and ponder how you're going to ask a new friend if he'd mind letting you take a drop of blood or sample of skin/hair for a genetic library in the event of his death (you have to clone him one day after all)?
And that's what gets you weird looks I guess. Ah well.
Arrogant, too. I'm never wrong, and if you always disagree with me, you therefore must always be wrong.
But you know you're wrong when you say you're always right, because -I- am always right.
Who is to say that the common view of reality is the appropriate one? This is why I've never been for institutionalization unless they have killed somebody, and demonstrated the likeliness of doing so again. Other than that, they should be in prison.
Well for this we use science, because then everybody's yelling at each other over reality with no answer to settle it.
That could be construed as a sign of fatherly affection, or out of respect for his daughter.
That's true, I was just using it as an example of strangeness that leads people to ponder insanity, however.
What is reality?
P.S. This quote by Jung goes well with most of the argument:
"If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool. "
Reality is what is objectively true. Being ephemeral humans it can be argued that we never see reality truly objectively, but at best have tools to get an idea of it, such as science and logic.
For example we have no idea what an atom looks like, and never will, but we can use indirect information to make a model of it.
I try not to assume people are fools. It's just that some people are really really good at insisting that they are, despite you best intentions to give benefit of the doubt.
Atoms can't be seen. They, like their constituent particles are too small. We can detect them, however. There is a difference. It has to do with wavelengths.
If this is how the arguments are going to continue for this debate, it'd be best to end it now.
Hmmm I guess that's true. But then that just means that theists are accepting a claim....
I would agree, in some cases. There are many theists who simply accept the claim - out of habit, expectation, tradition or whatever other justification they use. But, I would wager that most also believe the claim, especially its theological underpinnings (on which the very claim is made).
Theists: I don't have a way to demonstrate, scientifically, that God exists. I believe that he does.
Atheists: I don't have a way to demonstrate, scientifically, that God exists. I don't believe that he does.
Both rely on scientific proof. Thing about theists is they look beyond what is scientifically testable. Beyond what's right in front of everything in existence.
Theists: I don't have a way to demonstrate, scientifically, that God exists. I believe that he does.
Atheists: I don't have a way to demonstrate, scientifically, that God exists. I don't believe that he does.
Both rely on scientific proof. Thing about theists is they look beyond what is scientifically testable. Beyond what's right in front of everything in existence.
You're doing it wrong, like Kinda.
This is about Burden of Proof. When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claim using either logic (this is where mathematical proof comes in, but it only applies to logic) or through evidence. If you lack evidence the default position is "negative."
Think of it like "Innocent until proven guilty" only we're talking about claims and "unconvinced until evidence is provided."
The burden of proof exists because without it, any claim no matter how absurd would be on equal footing with its denial.
This is about Burden of Proof. When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claim using either logic (this is where mathematical proof comes in, but it only applies to logic) or through evidence. If you lack evidence the default position is "negative."
Very very wrong.
First, the burden of proof is on the person that makes a claim. Not positive claims, but claims. Even negative claims must be proven.
Second, logic, as well as philosophy, is as good as proof as scientific evidence. Denying logic as a valid proof as you did is mere scientism.
Third, if you lack evidence, the default position is 'non-belief,' that is, you neither claim to be true, nor you claim it to be false. Demanding the default position to be negative is denialism.
Fourth, evidence has been provided, both philosophical and logical ones. What you are demanding is scientific evidence, so let us at least be clear about this.
First, the burden of proof is on the person that makes a claim. Not positive claims, but claims. Even negative claims must be proven.
Negative claims must be proven when the positive claim has substance behind it. For example, the birthers who insist that there is no birth certificate must prove their case that Obama isn't a citizen by showing positive examples of negligence in his background check before entering a political career/being sworn in. Whereas Obama's legitimacy is substantiated by the national security involved in screening and monitoring political figures.
Second, logic, as well as philosophy, is as good as proof as scientific evidence. Denying logic as a valid proof as you did is mere scientism.
Looks like you made a categorical error. Logic is deductive, science is inductive. Logic is immutable when the premises are correct and the syllogism is consistent. Science cannot prove anything in the formal sense, but can give us very good certainty.
Third, if you lack evidence, the default position is 'non-belief,' that is, you neither claim to be true, nor you claim it to be false. Demanding the default position to be negative is denialism.
You're just trying to make a semantic argument dashed with some hyperbole. If a person makes an audacious claim with no evidence, we don't believe it, and we deny is until something of substance is put forward. Quibbling over this point is just a subtle way to lend legitimacy to unsupported claims by attacking the people who don't accept them as somehow being in denial.
Fourth, evidence has been provided, both philosophical and logical ones. What you are demanding is scientific evidence, so let us at least be clear about this.
No, I am demanding evidence that can pass the rigours of academic and scientific scrutiny. Every major claim about reality must do this, but "god" is immune to this requirement in the minds of most people for some reason.
There are no logical arguments for god that stand up to scrutiny, they typically make the following errors: erroneous premise(es), non sequitur, emotional appeals or appeals to consequences, lack of consistency.
Philosophy isn't a form of knowledge, it's a means to interpret knowledge, a perspective, and it can be a way to obtain knowledge.
Negative claims must be proven when the positive claim has substance behind it.
The Burden of Proof states nothing like this. The Burden of Proof states that the person that makes the claim has to prove them. This rule is solely your. Keep in mind that making a negative claim is different from claiming that a claim is wrong. In fact, if I made a claim, and demanded you to prove me wrong, you would be correct to say that you are only under obligation of doing so if there is any "substance behind" my claim.
To return your example back at you, assume that I insist that Obama is not American. This is a negative claim, since a negative claim is defined as a claim where I affirm that something (Obama) does not have a certain property (American citizenship), even if I word it affirmatively (Obama is a foreigner), but even if it is a negative claim, I am only under obligation to disprove it if there is a reason to believe your claim (Obama's parents are imigrants).
Therefore, we can conclude that it does not matter if the claim is positive or negative, all are under Burden of Proof, and please do not confuse making a negative claim with demanding negative proof in the future.
Science cannot prove anything in the formal sense, but can give us very good certainty.
True. Science cannot prove anything in the formal sense, formal sense being defined as mathematical proofs that are beyond doubt, but what is your point, really? Are you arguing for a position of existencial nihilism or are you just arguing that if something cannot be proven beyond doubt, then it is not proven at all? Sure you've heard of the Theory of Justification, right?
If a person makes an audacious claim with no evidence, we don't believe it, and we deny is until something of substance is put forward.
Wrong (or maybe you really act like this, I am now not that sure anymore). You simply do not believe the person. There is a difference between not believing the person and claiming the person to be a liar, by affirming the opposite to be true until evidence is presented.
No, I am demanding evidence that can pass the rigours of academic and scientific scrutiny.
So, no, you are not demanding scientific evidence, you are only demanding scientific evidence? Is it? Because I see no difference between 'scientific evidence' and 'evidence that passed under rigorous academic and scientific scrutinity.'
There are no logical arguments for god that stand up to scrutiny, they typically make the following errors (list)
I'd like to review all of them with you, then. I think they stand to a lot of scrutiny.
Philosophy isn't a form of knowledge, it's a means to interpret knowledge, a perspective, and it can be a way to obtain knowledge.
Good, then we agree that one can accrue knowledge that one can affirm to be true solely through Philosophy? And thus, demands for scientific evidence, in detriment of philosophical reasoning is mere scientism?
The Burden of Proof states nothing like this. The Burden of Proof states that the person that makes the claim has to prove them. This rule is solely your. Keep in mind that making a negative claim is different from claiming that a claim is wrong. In fact, if I made a claim, and demanded you to prove me wrong, you would be correct to say that you are only under obligation of doing so if there is any "substance behind" my claim.
To return your example back at you, assume that I insist that Obama is not American. This is a negative claim, since a negative claim is defined as a claim where I affirm that something (Obama) does not have a certain property (American citizenship), even if I word it affirmatively (Obama is a foreigner), but even if it is a negative claim, I am only under obligation to disprove it if there is a reason to believe your claim (Obama's parents are imigrants).
You restated what I said in different words.
Therefore, we can conclude that it does not matter if the claim is positive or negative, all are under Burden of Proof, and please do not confuse making a negative claim with demanding negative proof in the future.
I didn't. You misunderstood my informal language apparently, when I stated:
This is about Burden of Proof. When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claim using either logic (this is where mathematical proof comes in, but it only applies to logic) or through evidence. If you lack evidence the default position is "negative."
Think of it like "Innocent until proven guilty" only we're talking about claims and "unconvinced until evidence is provided."
The burden of proof exists because without it, any claim no matter how absurd would be on equal footing with its denial.
True. Science cannot prove anything in the formal sense, formal sense being defined as mathematical proofs that are beyond doubt, but what is your point, really? Are you arguing for a position of existencial nihilism or are you just arguing that if something cannot be proven beyond doubt, then it is not proven at all? Sure you've heard of the Theory of Justification, right?
I was explaining the difference between scientific and logical knowledge.
Wrong (or maybe you really act like this, I am now not that sure anymore). You simply do not believe the person. There is a difference between not believing the person and claiming the person to be a liar, by affirming the opposite to be true until evidence is presented.
Denying a claim does not make the implication of liar. Denying and not believing are for the purposes of this discussion the same, unless you are trying for a semantic debate.
So, no, you are not demanding scientific evidence, you are only demanding scientific evidence? Is it? Because I see no difference between 'scientific evidence' and 'evidence that passed under rigorous academic and scientific scrutinity.'
Scientific evidence must pass through scrutiny from the scientific community and must meet their criteria for methodology. Academic evidence is more broad, but still under scrutiny from qualified experts, the important difference being that philosophical and logical evidence may be accepted.
In other words, scientific evidence or evidence that has been reviewed by experts who are reliable, skeptics, and so on.
I'd like to review all of them with you, then. I think they stand to a lot of scrutiny.
You're free to, but just because you're convinced doesn't mean they'll get past me. You make many assumptions about nature that these arguments rely on.
Good, then we agree that one can accrue knowledge that one can affirm to be true solely through Philosophy? And thus, demands for scientific evidence, in detriment of philosophical reasoning is mere scientism?
I would argue that philosophical reasoning and scientific reasoning are two spheres of methodology for obtaining knowledge that have some overlap, with the chief important difference that science requires that its claims be tested for accuracy using a methodology which requires objectivity. Philosophy is mostly obsolete for this purpose and has been relegated to the role of determining soundness of ideas that are untestable, subjective.
I don't believe that philosophy can determine the truth of anything non-conceptual however, because although you can engineer sound logical arguments using it, you ultimately rely on premises that MAY be true, indeterminate.
For any given argument (e.g., the existence/nonexistence of fairies), both sides of the proposition carry a burden of proof.
The emphasys is mine, and thanks for making my point for me. Yes, the burden can be assymetrical. It does not excuse you of the Burden of Proof. As per the article's example: "In this case, the party making no claim about fairies has no burden of proof." The party making a claim that fairies do not exist still have burden of proof. Less, but it exists.
And that was what I stated previously. The default position is not the negative, but no position. One making a negative claim still have the burden of proof.
I am sorry but you should really read the whole article to avoid shaming yourself like this. You just supported my own point while trying to disagree with it.
You restated what I said in different words.
Yes, I did. And demonstrated that the Burden of Proof applies to positive or negative claims. Obviously, you insist on being correct because you insist that making negative claims is the same as making no claims.
I didn't. You misunderstood my informal language apparently, when I stated:
When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claim
If you lack evidence the default position is "negative."
I did not misunderstand your language. You stated that only positive claims need proof and that the default position is negative. Both statements are wrong. Both kinds of claims need proof and the default position is neutral, as in, "I don't know." It is about time you give up and accept that your claims were wrong.
I was explaining the difference between scientific and logical knowledge.
No one disputes such differences. What we dispute is the claim that only scientific knowledge has weight as evidence.
Denying a claim does not make the implication of liar
Me: - I can fly.
You: - No, you cannot.
You just called me a liar.
Denying and not believing are for the purposes of this discussion the same, unless you are trying for a semantic debate.
Sorry, but you don't get to decide semantic meaning of expressions. Those expressions means what they mean, and they do not mean the same thing. Just because you, unilateraly, decided that they mean the same thing, "for the purpose of this discussion", doesn't make it true. You are not Humpty Dumpty. If you wanted them to mean the same thing, you must state it together with your arguments. Mind you, I would have never complained if you had done it.
We can, from this point forward, assume that they mean the same thing, yes.
In other words, scientific evidence or evidence that has been reviewed by experts who are reliable, skeptics, and so on.
Let's drop the scientific, and stay with academic, ok?
You make many assumptions about nature that these arguments rely on.
We all make assumptions. In all your arguments, you assume evolution to be true. I usually attempt to make the least assumptions with my arguments, though.
I don't believe that philosophy can determine the truth of anything non-conceptual however, because although you can engineer sound logical arguments using it, you ultimately rely on premises that MAY be true, indeterminate.
So does science. No matter how much you try to whirl your argument, the point is that everything relies on assumptions. Have you learned nothing from Newton's Gravitation Laws? We assumed them to be true, and worked with them as if they were true, till we found out that they weren't really true always. Then we got something better. And we also assume it to be true, until proven otherwise. In the end, science also relies on premises that may be true, but you can't state with all certainty.
The emphasys is mine, and thanks for making my point for me. Yes, the burden can be assymetrical. It does not excuse you of the Burden of Proof. As per the article's example: "In this case, the party making no claim about fairies has no burden of proof." The party making a claim that fairies do not exist still have burden of proof. Less, but it exists.
Also look at:
There are any number of factors which can influence the symmetry of the burden. Two of the most common are
How close the claim corresponds to conventional knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" (close) and "pigs fly" (distant).
Whether the claim is ontologically positive or negative such as the claim "unicorns exist" (positive) or the claim "unicorns don't exist" (negative).
This is the base of what I use. Since I deal with audacious claims all the time, the burden lies on them.
I am sorry but you should really read the whole article to avoid shaming yourself like this. You just supported my own point while trying to disagree with it.
The context is god, an audacious claim. So, I'm correct. Context matters you know.
I did not misunderstand your language. You stated that only positive claims need proof and that the default position is negative. Both statements are wrong. Both kinds of claims need proof and the default position is neutral, as in, "I don't know." It is about time you give up and accept that your claims were wrong.
The context was audacious claims like god, this being a god debate after all.
I said:
When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claim using either logic (this is where mathematical proof comes in, but it only applies to logic) or through evidence. If you lack evidence the default position is "negative."
I didn't say that only positive claims require proof, but in the context of the debate we were talking about a positive claim, god, and so of course that's what I elaborated upon.
Me: - I can fly.
You: - No, you cannot.
You just called me a liar.
Liar implies deception. The correct word is "unsubstantiated."
Let's drop the scientific, and stay with academic, ok?
Why?
We all make assumptions. In all your arguments, you assume evolution to be true. I usually attempt to make the least assumptions with my arguments, though.
You make assumptions that you aren't even aware of, is what I was saying.
Also, I don't need to assume that evolution is true, I can claim knowledge that it is.
So does science.
Which is why we experiment to test those premises.
No matter how much you try to whirl your argument, the point is that everything relies on assumptions. Have you learned nothing from Newton's Gravitation Laws? We assumed them to be true, and worked with them as if they were true, till we found out that they weren't really true always.
We found that Newtons laws break down at relativistic magnitudes, or the very small, but they didn't suddenly become false for what we used them for the past three centuries.
Then we got something better. And we also assume it to be true, until proven otherwise. In the end, science also relies on premises that may be true, but you can't state with all certainty.
It isn't a binary state. The new models are always conditionally true. The thing about science is that, unlike philosophical reasoning, it tests its premises which means we can claim a degree of certainty. In purely logical arguments the premises are never tested.
This is the base of what I use. Since I deal with audacious claims all the time, the burden lies on them.
You can keep restating it all the time, it won't change a thing. You still have the burden of proof if you make the opposite claim. I don't care if they have a heavy burden than you do. You still have it. You're making negative claims about the existence of God. You still have burden of proof. The burden does not lie on them. It lies on both sides. Read the article.
So, I'm correct. Context matters you know.
You are incorrect. Context determines assymetry, not who has the burden of proof. You still have burden of proof for all your claims. Read the article and stop talking nonsense.
I didn't say that only positive claims require proof,
You're attempting to argue semantics to defend your position now. This is a very weak argument as the text disagrees with you. It doesn't matter what you meant to write. What matters is what you did write. If you didn't mean it, go back and remove the word 'positive' from your text. If what you say is true, it won't detract from your argument. If you insist on keeping it, what you meant is clear.
It doesn't matter really. The default position will never be 'negative,' but neutral. Discuss semantics all the way into tomorrow if you will. You're still wrong.
Let's drop the scientific, and stay with academic, ok?
Why?
Demanding the proof to be scientific only is scientism. Not everything can be proven by the scientific method.
You make assumptions that you aren't even aware of, is what I was saying.
Everyone does it. What is your point? Are you claiming that you don't?
Also, I don't need to assume that evolution is true, I can claim knowledge that it is.
Oh, really? And based on what such knowledge is? More unproven premises, like Abiogenesis and the Tree of Life? You do realize that, if Abiogenesis is proven to be false, Evolutions fall together with it, don't you?
Which is why we experiment to test those premises.
No, you don't. You experiment on your hypothesis. The premises are something you take for granted. That's why the prefix 'pre (before)' exists in the word premise. It means a proposition from which another follows. If you had to test your premises, you would have to test its own premises, and so forth, all the way back to the most basic concepts possible. That's why you don't test premises. You build upon them.
they didn't suddenly become false for what we used them for the past three centuries.
Actually, they are incorrect, but their result is good enough so they can be used in some situations. We have good ways to measure it, to measure its error, and to know in which situation the error generated by it will not be meaningful.
In purely logical arguments the premises are never tested.
Yes, they are. Logically, and sometimes empyrically and scientifically. To borrow an expression you like to use, logical conclusions do not arise ex nihilo. They follow from something else. I already told you to be wary of universal premises. Words like always and never are very difficult to be used in an argument, and you keep throwing them around.
Just because you like making bare assertions on your 'reasonings', and never backs up your premises with any evidence or reasoning, does not mean that everyone else does the same.
You can keep restating it all the time, it won't change a thing. You still have the burden of proof if you make the opposite claim. I don't care if they have a heavy burden than you do. You still have it. You're making negative claims about the existence of God. You still have burden of proof. The burden does not lie on them. It lies on both sides. Read the article.
Saying "no" is already justified by "there is no evidence that survives scrutiny which supports god." The second claim is justified by the expert sceptics who verify audacious claims, and by looking at testimony and finding parsimonious explanations that fit.
If I said "I can prove beyond all doubt that god doesn't exist" the burden of proof would be great for me, because I'm aiming to contradict an unfalsifiable claim.
You're attempting to argue semantics to defend your position now. This is a very weak argument as the text disagrees with you. It doesn't matter what you meant to write. What matters is what you did write. If you didn't mean it, go back and remove the word 'positive' from your text. If what you say is true, it won't detract from your argument. If you insist on keeping it, what you meant is clear.
I said that positive claims require evidence, they have the burden of proof. Quit inserting words into what I said in an attempt to bolster yourself.
This is why religious people and creationists can't be taken seriously, you don't know when to concede, you treat every argument like it's the most important point that cannot fold.
When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claim
That's what I said. Don't insert words.
It doesn't matter really. The default position will never be 'negative,' but neutral. Discuss semantics all the way into tomorrow if you will. You're still wrong.
This is a semantic argument. Practically speaking, neutral and negative are the same here, they mean "unconvinced." You are concerned with "neutral" because it sounds softer to you than "no" or "negative" and you're making the positive audacious claim. Also, it lets you attack atheism as a claim that needs justification when it doesn't. We don't need to support our claim that unicorns don't exist, until evidence is found that they do.
Demanding the proof to be scientific only is scientism. Not everything can be proven by the scientific method.
Inserting words again. It's impossible to argue with someone who cannot read what you say and inserts connotations at every opportunity.
Oh, really? And based on what such knowledge is? More unproven premises, like Abiogenesis and the Tree of Life? You do realize that, if Abiogenesis is proven to be false, Evolutions fall together with it, don't you?
If big bang theory is proven false, then gravity, optics, biology, chemistry, medicine, etc. fall together with it!
No, you don't. You experiment on your hypothesis. The premises are something you take for granted. That's why the prefix 'pre (before)' exists in the word premise. It means a proposition from which another follows. If you had to test your premises, you would have to test its own premises, and so forth, all the way back to the most basic concepts possible. That's why you don't test premises. You build upon them.
A hypothesis can be called the premises that a theory rests upon.
Actually, they are incorrect, but their result is good enough so they can be used in some situations. We have good ways to measure it, to measure its error, and to know in which situation the error generated by it will not be meaningful.
You mean to say imprecise and inaccurate if used at certain magnitudes, not incorrect, which is a binary descriptor.
Yes, they are. Logically, and sometimes empyrically and scientifically. To borrow an expression you like to use, logical conclusions do not arise ex nihilo. They follow from something else. I already told you to be wary of universal premises. Words like always and never are very difficult to be used in an argument, and you keep throwing them around.
Back in the old days before science, philosophers and theologians thought that they could justify their theology using reason alone. It gave them wrong conclusions, like the cosmological argument, and argument from design. When we tested our premises, later becoming hypotheses, we were able to expand our knowledge by discarding arguments that sounded good but were wrong.
Just because you like making bare assertions on your 'reasonings', and never backs up your premises with any evidence or reasoning, does not mean that everyone else does the same.
Yes, that is right. Believe or not believe that is depend on the thinking and belief of everybody. I don't care anymore, but in mind mine, i have a belief
To say that something is a belief is not to say it is beyond factual corroboration. Someone can say that the Holocaust never happened, but the fact of the matter is that we have certifiable proof that it did indeed happen.
You insinuated that they were on equal terms as both are beliefs and that "going beyond what can be seen" somehow gives an advantage to theism. Such an insinuation is non-sense.
We should consider only evidence, when evaluating which is better (if either). Atheism or Theism.
I never insinuated nothing. Only the difference between the two.
Theists are wiser than athiests. Just because something isn't right in front of your eyes or tangible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or have an extreme influence in everything.
Just because something isn't right in front of your eyes or tangible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
The fact that it cannot be measured or demonstrated is good reason to believe it does not exist. We do not need faith to know magnetism exists even though we cannot see it, because we can measure magnetic fields.
That you postulate the existence of an entity that you cannot show even exists, is not a sign of wisdom.
Theists use faith to believe in what they cannot prove. Atheists believe that evidence is the logical basis for believing in something. It's not so much "what's right in front of our eyes" as much as any hint that God has ever existed. Example: Why would He damn people to hell for not believing in him if He hasn't given conclusive evidence that he exists?
Faith: " firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
I also believe that it is nearly impossible for us to prove God's existence until we are dead. It is then that we either find God exists, by going to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory (or some other form of the afterlife), or that He doesn't exist, by losing every form of sense perception and consciousness and rotting in the ground. The only way I can fathom proving His existence is if He shows Himself to the world and proves that He is, in fact, God by performing miracles or something. But that's probably not going to happen. ;)
Tell me, do you believe in the tooth fairy also? Why should the "god" concept get a special place in your mind that requires no evidence? Everything we believe is scrutinised on some level.
I think you know god doesn't exist but just want to believe he does for some reason.
Well I don't believe in the tooth fairy because I have somewhat strong proof that she doesn't exist. I know that my parents were the ones who put money under my pillow for each tooth (the most I ever got was $1 or $2, so I've always been jealous of the kid who gets $20! lol). However, for all I know, the tooth fairy could exist. Maybe not in this dimension, but maybe she exists in another dimension along with Santa, the Easter bunny, etc.
We can never know everything. And there are even some things we rely on blind faith for. Perhaps God was made up long long ago, but my belief in Him has brought me nothing but peace of mind, good hope for the future, and a figurative ear to tell my secrets to. If He isn't real, then that doesn't bother me. Nobody can change my opinion because my belief in God is part of who I am. If that makes me less of a person in some people's eyes, then so be it. Because those who judge me to be less of a person for that sole reason are, themselves, poor in character themselves. :)
You are more powerful then your beliefs. I know when someone incorporates a belief into their identity then I immediately have some power over them, I just simply have to decide weather I'm going to use it. When I hear that someone believes in god, and know its strongly incorporated into their identity; I Instantly know of a few ways to manipulate them. The scary part is, I'm not the only one which knows. These processes of manipulation are open for more then just petty conmen to use, bad memes get passed around because of them. Their bad because of their detrimental effects. These things include: abstinence only sex education, us and them mentalities, "Obama is a socialist": which causes attention to be diverted from real issues and good opportunities to be blacklisted cause of their false association, I can go on.
If I was to try to gain the most amount of control over you, the hardest challenge would be to revive god for you. God is already dead, you admit that in one of your counters to aveskde. I pray as if everything relies on God and act as if everything relies on me. This is good, but you still live with in his shadow. Most people are like you and This causes problems on a large scale. You might not be manipulable. god might just be like a baby blanket for you: carrying it around for comfort, so long as you don't trip on it you won't get hurt or hurt someone else by falling on them. Alot of people do indeed trip though, and that is a problem.
I don't think less of you because you believe in god, I do however feel sad for you because you make something into a part of yourself that has no basis in reality. That seems messed up to me.
What's so wasteful? I don't rely on God's guidance to get me through my troubles. I pray as if everything relies on God and act as if everything relies on me. I'm not asking for your respect; to be honest, I don't even want it. What you think is "wasteful" may not be the same for everyone, so next time you make generalizations like that maybe think about people who are exceptions to your opinion.
If a life spent believing in God is wasteful, then explain these people to me:
Robert Boyle
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
William James Sidis
Carl Jung
Isaac Newton
Galileo
Michelangelo
Juhann Gutenberg
James Watt
Blaise Pascal
Alexander Fleming
Beethoven
Mendel
Bach
Bacon
Pasteur
That's a supreme argument from authority. It doesn't vindicate you.
Besides the fact that many of those people were religious in ways that the commonfolk would deem heretical, I must wonder how much more some of them might have achieved if they weren't obsessed with apologetics and theology.
Who is to say that they would have achieved as much as they did?
I suppose secular society does. Look at how much we achieved by not using god as our inspiration. It seems that not turning to god gave us answers to the universal questions in under half a millennium.
Plus, religion is mass guessing at the nature of reality with little correctness, so the dogma wouldn't have necessarily helped them.
The did achieve an extreme amount - what makes you think they'd have achieved any more?
When you have men like Galileo and Newton, it's hard to imagine a limit on their ability to discovery except for time. Time was their limiting factor, and any religious distraction (which only leads to a dead end, see my secular society above) is a distraction away from productivity.
I suppose secular society does. Look at how much we achieved by not using god as our inspiration. It seems that not turning to god gave us answers to the universal questions in under half a millennium.
But the foundations were set by religious people.
When you have men like Galileo and Newton, it's hard to imagine a limit on their ability to discovery except for time. Time was their limiting factor, and any religious distraction (which only leads to a dead end, see my secular society above) is a distraction away from productivity.
Maybe they would not have bothered had it not been for their religiosity? I'd imagine that they set out to prove Christianity, just as many a modern scientist sets out to disprove Christianity.
You can't compare God to the toothfairy. The toothfairy actually has a coherent ontology. It can actually be considered a concept. God does not have a coherent ontology. God is nothing but a list of secondary and relational attributes, which do not make up a conceptual entity. Before one can even speak of the existence or nonexistence of God (like the existence or nonexistence of the toothfairy, for example), one must first provide a coherent ontology for God.
Thus, both answers to these questions are wrong. You cannot discuss the existence of something that no coherent definition. In any other discussion, you would first have to define a concept and then discuss whether that concept exists or not. For some reason, people mistakenly assume that God has the necessary attributes to be considered a coherent concept, and thus can be discussed.
Thus, both answers to these questions are wrong. You cannot discuss the existence of something that no coherent definition. In any other discussion, you would first have to define a concept and then discuss whether that concept exists or not. For some reason, people mistakenly assume that God has the necessary attributes to be considered a coherent concept, and thus can be discussed.
I wasn't using god and the tooth fairy for that purpose however. The comparison was insofar as people believing in things without evidence. People are happy to accept their pet god without evidence, but usually are dismissive of the idea of accepting other things without evidence. This was the point I was trying to illustrate.
Yes certainly. How can you deny the existence of God after seeing the many wonderful creations in this world. Where did water come from, where did trees come from? They do not just appear from no where. why is the sky blue? how can anyone answer that except we believe that there is a God who creates all these.
So by your logic, all these wonderfully complex things couldn't exist without an even more complex creator to create them.
The obvious problem this line of thinking presents is this: Trees, water and the sky are so complex, that some divine creator must have put them here, yet an invisible god in some unknown dimension who knows what 6 billion people are doing at any given time and can hear them all mumbling prayers in their heads....that requires no creator at all...got it.
So by your logic, without a god nothing can exist? So where did god come from? Another god? Is their an infinite amount of gods that create other gods? Or was god more like the big bang, except without a scientifical explanation?
I believe that it is very likely that SOME higher power created us, but honestly i don't think any religion we have here on earth has the right answer and I don't think any religion ever will. If a higher power did create us it was probably an accident anyways.
The facts say there is a god. you don't have to be Cristian to believe in god other religions also have god/s like Muslim, Hinduism, Judaism in total a large proportion of people believe in god.
According to the Christian Bible that was created over a span of about 1500 years by countless people, the facts of the Bible complement each other. How can this be possible except for divine intervention?
Moreover, on earth, it is known that for something everything needs a creator. We do not just appear like that. We are given birth by our mother. Where then does the first man come from?
We have heard of the "Potter and the Clay" theory, where the Potter is the creator.
According to the Christian Bible that was created over a span of about 1500 years by countless people, the facts of the Bible complement each other. How can this be possible except for divine intervention?
No they don't. Have you ever read the bible?
But even if it was consistent with itself, that's not beyond the ability of humans. Look at science, for example. Five-hundred years of work and we have a remarkably consistent image of the universe.
Moreover, on earth, it is known that for something everything needs a creator. We do not just appear like that. We are given birth by our mother. Where then does the first man come from?
Abiogenesis and evolution. Creation is unnecessary.
We have heard of the "Potter and the Clay" theory, where the Potter is the creator.
Please capitalize the word Bible as it is a proper name. And yes, I've read the Bible, many times over, and yes, they do. Have you read the Bible? I mean, not the skeptic's anotated version of it?
Look at science, for example. Five-hundred years of work and we have a remarkably consistent image of the universe.
You mean, five-hudred years of work and we keep contradicting ourselves every six-months? Where is the consistency on this? Every new discovery deems a previous discovery wrong. Science is not consistent, specially because there is very little consensus on the scientific community.
Abiogenesis and evolution
Abiogenesis is a joke. Do you know how much progress has been done on this field on the last hundred years and a half? None. If anything, we have proven that it is very unlikely to have happened.
Please capitalize the word Bible as it is a proper name. And yes, I've read the Bible, many times over, and yes, they do. Have you read the Bible? I mean, not the skeptic's anotated version of it?
Try reading the skeptic's annotated bible, it's a great resource. Or look at the following list:
The thing is, these types of lists are everywhere. Your presupposition is that the Bible is inerrant, you start from there and work down, trying very hard to reconcile contradictions or ignoring them. These sites take the bible at face value and determine consistency before leading to a conclusion.
You mean, five-hudred years of work and we keep contradicting ourselves every six-months? Where is the consistency on this? Every new discovery deems a previous discovery wrong. Science is not consistent, specially because there is very little consensus on the scientific community.
It would help if you got your science from the, you know, scientists and researchers but you use "Christian resources." Science doesn't work in a way that requires each strand of thread in the tapestry of knowledge to be immutable. It works by finding new discoveries, more elegant ways of representing theories, and correcting mistakes. This is why for example we knew about gravity since over three hundred years ago, and recently relativity EXPANDED upon Newton. This is why evolution started out as evolution by natural selection and is now the modern synthesis incorporating genetics, molecular biology, punctuated equilibrium, and other concepts. Scientific knowledge builds upon previous theory, it doesn't simply discard knowledge.
So try and learn about how this works instead of spouting ignorance.
Abiogenesis is a joke. Do you know how much progress has been done on this field on the last hundred years and a half? None. If anything, we have proven that it is very unlikely to have happened.
More like 50-60 years. Evolution is 150 years old, the real work on abiogenesis began around 1953. However we still know much about the subject, it simply is a relatively young area of research.
Try reading the skeptic's annotated bible, it's a great resource.
I see. So you've read only the skeptics annotated version.
These sites take the bible at face value and determine consistency before leading to a conclusion.
Yes, because a website called infidels.org certainly has an interest at studying the Bible at face value, and has absolutely no agenda regarding their interpretation. That's why they make sure to call themselves infidels. That's because they have no agenda whatsoever.
It would help if you got your science from the, you know, scientists and researchers but you use "Christian resources."
And based on what do you make such assertions? Your own preconceived notions of whom I am? So, your conclusions are now based on fairy tales about me that you came up with in your head?
Science doesn't work in a way that requires each strand of thread in the tapestry of knowledge to be immutable.
It is not my problem, really. I am not the one claiming it is consistent, when it isn't. There is nothing wrong with it not being consistent. It is not necessary to be consistent for something to be correct. Your whole plea of justification does not address the point in any way. The way science works makes it inconsistent, and often conflicting. No matter how much rationalization about how it works you can write to waste server space with, it won't change a thing. It is inconsistent and often conflicting.
Scientific knowledge builds upon previous theory, it doesn't simply discard knowledge.
It discards knowledge if it was proven to be wrong. Yes, it simply does.
More like 50-60 years. Evolution is 150 years old, the real work on abiogenesis began around 1953. However we still know much about the subject, it simply is a relatively young area of research.
Again, it is not my problem. Evolution relied on abiogenesis since its inception. It is not my problem if no one decided to tackle the problem for a hundred years. It is still 150 years old and no progress has been made so far. All those things you claim we know about the subject? It is all about what we know that didn't happen.
You should read that link further.
I know all about the latest arguments and counterarguments and countercounterarguments and so forth. You should study it further.
I see. So you've read only the skeptics annotated version.
I didn't say that.
Yes, because a website called infidels.org certainly has an interest at studying the Bible at face value, and has absolutely no agenda regarding their interpretation. That's why they make sure to call themselves infidels. That's because they have no agenda whatsoever.
Whether or not they have an agenda isn't relevant.
And based on what do you make such assertions? Your own preconceived notions of whom I am? So, your conclusions are now based on fairy tales about me that you came up with in your head?
Heuristics mainly.
It is not my problem, really. I am not the one claiming it is consistent, when it isn't. There is nothing wrong with it not being consistent. It is not necessary to be consistent for something to be correct. Your whole plea of justification does not address the point in any way. The way science works makes it inconsistent, and often conflicting. No matter how much rationalization about how it works you can write to waste server space with, it won't change a thing. It is inconsistent and often conflicting.
Your error is that you look at active research in established fields (which changes) without paying attention to overarching theory which is interdependent and hardly changes (with changes being consistent with that theory).
You don't see the big picture, in other words.
It discards knowledge if it was proven to be wrong. Yes, it simply does.
The way science works is that that "discarded" knowledge will be amalgamated into the new theory.
Again, it is not my problem. Evolution relied on abiogenesis since its inception. It is not my problem if no one decided to tackle the problem for a hundred years. It is still 150 years old and no progress has been made so far. All those things you claim we know about the subject? It is all about what we know that didn't happen.
Evolution is distinct from abiogenesis. I know it's tough, being a creationist and having to conform to a quota of errors per paragraph, but commit this correction to memory.
Evolution deals with diversification, so it wouldn't matter if abiogenesis were tossed out tomorrow, life could pop into existence interdimensionally and it would mean nothing to evolution.
Anyway, I'm not going to entertain a big god of the gaps on your part.
I asked if you read any other version. You answered by stating that skeptic's is a good source, which implies that you read it. You didn't state any other version that you read. The conclusion follows.
Whether or not they have an agenda isn't relevant.
Of course not! A website created exclusevely with the purpose of making the Bible sound ridiculous can certainly be trusted to take the Bible at face value and interprete it fairly. What was I thinking when I doubted them? Their agenda is completely meaningless.
Heuristics mainly.
Heuristics can lead to incorrect results. In your case, it just did.
You don't see the big picture, in other words.
You're a science apologetics, then. It is still inconsistent and often conflicting and you have not addressed this yet.
Evolution is distinct from abiogenesis
True. It only relies on it. It states that abiogenesis happened, and then says "not our problem to confirm or prove it, but it happened. We take from here."
Do you deny this as well?
life could pop into existence interdimensionally and it would mean nothing to evolution.
That would be a theist evolutionary hypothesis. True, it is a possibility, but if you believed it, you wouldn't be here trying to argue that God does not exist, would you?
Or are you going to defend the theist evolutionary hypothesis while trying to defend that God does not exist at the same time? Hypocrisy much?
I asked if you read any other version. You answered by stating that skeptic's is a good source, which implies that you read it. You didn't state any other version that you read. The conclusion follows.
The only conclusion you can infer is that I read the SAB.
Of course not! A website created exclusevely with the purpose of making the Bible sound ridiculous can certainly be trusted to take the Bible at face value and interprete it fairly. What was I thinking when I doubted them? Their agenda is completely meaningless.
Well besides the fact that you don't have to make any effort to ridicule the bible, taking it at face value does it for you, you're missing the larger point that a group's agenda doesn't determine the truthfulness of their argument. The argument stands or falls on its own merit.
Heuristics can lead to incorrect results. In your case, it just did.
Right, but your flawed sense of biology makes me think you got your "education" from Christian resources.
You're a science apologetics, then. It is still inconsistent and often conflicting and you have not addressed this yet.
I believe I just explained this already. Small details change but the big theories work together and stay awfully static by comparison.
True. It only relies on it. It states that abiogenesis happened, and then says "not our problem to confirm or prove it, but it happened. We take from here."
It doesn't even rely on it. Whether or not abiogenesis happens is irrelevant to evolution's ability to work. Just as Newtonian physics isn't in danger because it doesn't account for the big bang, or how chemistry doesn't care about the origin of the chemical elements. Science works in compartmental units, not as a monolithic theory of everything.
That would be a theist evolutionary hypothesis. True, it is a possibility, but if you believed it, you wouldn't be here trying to argue that God does not exist, would you?
Or are you going to defend the theist evolutionary hypothesis while trying to defend that God does not exist at the same time? Hypocrisy much?
Not really relevant to the discussion. Try to stay on topic.
If you argue that everything needs a creator, then your "higher power" also needs a creator. Which just leads to the conclusion that nothing can exist, since there would have to at some point be something that came from nothing, and the universe is just as likely to have created itself as any higher power would be really. And Occam's razor states that the simpler theory is generally the more likely one so logically one would say it makes more sense for the universe to have simply come from nothing than for it to have a creator.
the universe is just as likely to have created itself as any higher power would be really.
So, if you are okay with the idea of the Universe being self-created, why do you oppose the idea of God self-creating Himself so harshly? To reverse your point back at you, if you argue that something can be self-created, then I can argue that God can be self-created.
Occam's razor states that the simpler theory is generally the more likely
No, it doesn't. Please learn Occam's Razor correctly before attempting to use it. It says that the theory that makes the least assumptions is more likely. There is nothing on the Razor about being 'simpler.'
so logically one would say it makes more sense for the universe to have simply come from nothing
Please stop throwing the word 'logically' around in an attempt to sound smart. Your argument is not logical. It is plagued with circular reasoning since it assumes its conclusion. In fact, your logical 'conclusion' is your first premise. Assuming the Universe to be self-caused also means to assume an exception on the Principle of Causality, and such exception must be justified.
That a number fo books are consistent with each-other does not necessitate divine intervention.
Nor do priori assumptions constitute facts. Even if everything required a creator, who si to say that this creator must be your god? Rain comes into existence as the result of a natural process not from any particular creator.
If the existence of god relied on facts, religions would not rely on faith.
Tell me one fact that proves there is no God. Poor choice of argument because neither problem has an answer. I cannot prove God's existence, but you cannot prove Him to be fake either.
Tell me one fact that proves there is no God. Poor choice of argument because neither problem has an answer. I cannot prove God's existence, but you cannot prove Him to be fake either.
If you can't prove god exists then there is no reason to assume he does.
If you can't prove God doesn't exist then there is no reason to assume He doesn't. It's not as if I woke up one day and said "Gee, I want to believe in a divine being even though He doesn't exist. Let's make one up." I was raised in a religious environment and, sure, maybe that's where my beliefs started, but they sure as hell aren't going to change because of arguments like that.
If you can't prove God doesn't exist then there is no reason to assume He doesn't.
Yes there is. It's called the burden of proof. It's one of the tools of sceptical thought.
You make a claim, any will do, and then you must justify that claim with evidence, or logic. If you fail to do this, I can simply say "you're wrong" or "no" or dismiss you.
You employ this tool every day, probably without even realising it. If a person comes up to you and says an alien is talking to them, you expect proof. But more casually you dismiss them because they have none.
You came into this debate and effectively said "I have no proof but believe in god because it feels good." You didn't defend yourself, and so your claim can be simply dismissed.
It's not as if I woke up one day and said "Gee, I want to believe in a divine being even though He doesn't exist. Let's make one up."
No, but you admitted that the idea of god gives you peace of mind. You have no rational reason to believe so you chose an emotional one.
I was raised in a religious environment and, sure, maybe that's where my beliefs started, but they sure as hell aren't going to change because of arguments like that.
If you were born in Egypt you would be telling me that Allah gives you peace of mind, and that your beliefs won't change because of my arguments.
People believe in silly things and live their lives by them all the time. Critical thinking is a journey to rid yourself of this problem, but because you value peace of mind over truth, you're probably not interested in such a life.
So now my beliefs are "silly things"? Just because I believe in God does not mean that I don't value the truth. I'm a scientist at heart, a pre-med major to be exact. Science is what we do to explain the mechanistic workings of this Earth. And to explain these workings, they must be predictable and not subject to random change that can't be explained. I expect truth in the world through science and reason and my belief in God doesn't contradict either science nor reason.
So now my beliefs are "silly things"? Just because I believe in God does not mean that I don't value the truth.
It isn't an exclusionary dilemma. However belief in god impedes one's ability to find the truth. God is an easy answer without depth, it gives you peace of mind when you shouldn't be satisfied with the answers you have.
God is the philosophical version of junk food.
I'm a scientist at heart, a pre-med major to be exact.
And you don't see a huge contradiction here?
I expect truth in the world through science and reason and my belief in God doesn't contradict either science nor reason.
God is a cop-out, it's a non-answer. God doesn't belong in a reasoning discipline because he is an idea born from ignorance and begs the antithesis of reason: faith.
Belief in God does not impede one's ability to find the truth. Explain to me how there could be a contradiction. I've heard the arguments before, but I want to understand why you are so adamant on disproving something that can't be disproved.
Belief in God does not impede one's ability to find the truth. Explain to me how there could be a contradiction.
Science progresses from our ability to reduce phenomena into models that predict behaviour. In addition, as we learn more about the universe these models start to relate to each other, revealing symmetry in nature.
God is the opposite. God works by taking a phenomenon and associating a complex, incomprehensible entity with it. It doesn't try to reduce the phenomenon down into smaller, more digestible parts, instead it invites that we dress god with more complex assumptions, in order to try and make it work in the minds of people. God produces no predictions for nature, god doesn't increase our understanding of how nature works.
The classic example is life. When we didn't know how life came to be this way, god was invoked as the creator of life with no explanation as to how. Then more was added to god, he is merciful, he is punishing us with death for our sins, etc. Science on the other hand ignored god and discovered evolution and abiogenesis, two discoveries that allow us to understand how life changes, and that there may be more life in the universe.
In other words, god violates the parsimonious and explanatory nature of science.
I've heard the arguments before, but I want to understand why you are so adamant on disproving something that can't be disproved.
I'm not interested in disproving god. God is an incoherent concept that collapse on its own. I'm interested in attacking bad (as in poor reasoning) arguments.
"In other words, god violates the parsimonious and explanatory nature of science."
The reason God and science don't contradict each other is simple, though. God is supernatural and science is natural. Natural phenomena can be predicted, manipulated, studied, etc. Supernatural phenomena cannot. But there are plenty of people like me, who understand that God is not a crutch to explain things that are too complex. Rather, we believe that He has little control over the world in which we live, other than in a psychological sense.
The reason God and science don't contradict each other is simple, though. God is supernatural and science is natural.
Right. As long as you maintain this distinction.
Natural phenomena can be predicted, manipulated, studied, etc. Supernatural phenomena cannot.
Certo.
But there are plenty of people like me, who understand that God is not a crutch to explain things that are too complex. Rather, we believe that He has little control over the world in which we live, other than in a psychological sense.
This is deism.
If you compare the deistic universe and atheistic universe, you will find that the deistic universe requires at least one assumption more than the atheistic universe. Therefore it is less likely to be valid in comparison. This is Occam's razor.
If you try to use your deistic god to explain anything in the universe, you've crossed into contradiction with science. So remember this the next time you wish to invoke god to explain the start of the universe, that you are violate the parsimonious and explanatory nature of science by shoehorning god into the problem.
I'm not interested in disproving god. God is an incoherent concept that collapse on its own. I'm interested in attacking bad (as in poor reasoning) arguments.
You mean, by using your own poor reasoned arguments? You haven't made a single argument in any of the replies you sent me so far that went past bare assertions.
You mean, by using your own poor reasoned arguments? You haven't made a single argument in any of the replies you sent me so far that went past bare assertions.
Creationists are not a threat to my knowledge, and never admit defeat anyway; That is why I don't bother listing academic references, and find it enough to explain errors using metaphor, or simply listing them.
If I enter a challenging debate or one with people who are open minded, I will often list sources to facts that are contestable.
Not really if you read the post I disputed, I am aware that there is no way of proving either way. I was simply asking for a fact from a person that posted "The fact that God exists" as an answer to Does God exist
It is not necessary to present evidence for the nonexistence of something. The burden of proof lies with the person who is making a claim, and atheists aren't necessarily claiming that god doesn't exist, but instead are claiming that they don't accept the hypothesis that god exists. In other words, atheism is a negative response to a positive claim made by theism. Therefore, the default position is nonbelief. Otherwise it would be logical to believe in unicorns, Santa, and Bigfoot.
Here is proof there has to be a god - or a totally independant being if you are really stingy.
Everything in this universe is winding down. Everything - everything is dependant on something else. We are dependant on Earth and the axel tilt, orbit, blah blah blah, so there has to be something (someONE acording to believers) in the centre of it all, dependant on nothing - totally independant, or the whole universe would collapse in on it's self. why hasn't it? Because there is a god.
What baffles me most is how a website where people are coming because they claim to be willing to have rational discussions can have this kind of comment (a mere insult with no arguments added to it) upvoted 3 times. I am not sure if I am sadder for you (who thinks that this was a good response) or for the people that liked your response. Allow me to downvote you and undo some of the damage.
You confuse facts with faiths. The faiths say there is a god. But surely not all of these religions can be right. Factual matters become more unified over time, faith matters become more divided over time.
According to the Christian Bible that was created over a span of about 1500 years by countless people, the facts of the Bible complement each other. How can this be possible except for divine intervention?
Moreover, on earth, it is known that for something everything needs a creator. We do not just appear like that. We are given birth by our mother. Where then does the first man come from?
We have heard of the "Potter and the Clay" theory, where the Potter is the creator.
you only need to simply type into google "bible contradictions" to be assulted with a array of results. if god is real, in any shape or form, i belive he dosnt give a rats ass, or he is completely incompetent
it means i believe he wouldn't have bothered with any divine intervention, ever. or if he did, it would have been retarded....well actually...now that i look at the bible....
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her" - Deuteronomy 15:11-12
"to teh women he said: i will greatly increase your pain in childbearing: with pain you will give birth to children. your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" -Genesis 3:16
If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." (Deuteronomy)
Heaven is to be inhabited by 144,000 virgin men who have not been "defiled" by women. (RE 14:1-4) [One wonders how this squares with God's command to, "Be fruitful and multiply...(Genesis )]
(war or peace?)
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Yes certainly. How can you deny the existence of God after seeing the many wonderful creations in this world. Where did water come from, where did trees come from? They do not just appear from no where. why is the sky blue? how can anyone answer that except we believe that there is a God who creates all these.
Yes certainly. How can you deny the existence of God after seeing the many wonderful creations in this world. Where did water come from, where did trees come from? They do not just appear from no where. why is the sky blue? how can anyone answer that except we believe that there is a God who creates all these.
Nature made these things, not god. Besides, you're just begging for an infinite recursion problem where god requires a creator, and his creator needs a creator and so on.
"Nature made these things, not god" - INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!
What I hate is, in a science lesson when children ask things like "Miss, who created water?" and the answer is "It was a chemical reaction which occurred during the big bang." The big bang did not happen. God created the world. Saying that a collision created life, emotion, death, has the probability of a metal factory exploding and creating a BMW with leather seats and an extra big boot. Look at the complexity of the human body. The talent, emotion, power to think, look at the nervous system, the skeleton. Open the curtains and look out side. If you see a rural setting, don't tell me God didn't create that, if you see an urban landscape, don't tell me the big bang created people with the ability to design and create buildings and the materials to make them. and the factories to make the materials, and the materials to make the factories etc...
Just face the facts, Nature did NOT make these things, GOD DID!
Just face the facts, Nature did NOT make these things, GOD DID!
Besides, you're just begging for an infinite recursion problem where god requires a creator, and his creator needs a creator and so on.
Who made god?
What I hate is, in a science lesson when children ask things like "Miss, who created water?" and the answer is "It was a chemical reaction which occurred during the big bang."
I hate people who use the language poorly. The answer to your question is "No one" because no person created all the water.
Water is a very simple molecule that forms from oxygen and dihydrogen. It would exist in nebulas because exploded stars create the oxygen from fusion.
The big bang did not happen.
Incorrect.
Read a science book.
God created the world.
Wrong again. Gravity made earth from exploded stardust.
Saying that a collision created life, emotion, death, has the probability of a metal factory exploding and creating a BMW with leather seats and an extra big boot.
Nature isn't random on our scale.
Look at the complexity of the human body. The talent, emotion, power to think, look at the nervous system, the skeleton. Open the curtains and look out side.
Snowflakes are complex too. Nature made them, just as it made your human body with evolution.
If you see a rural setting, don't tell me God didn't create that, if you see an urban landscape, don't tell me the big bang created people with the ability to design and create buildings and the materials to make them. and the factories to make the materials, and the materials to make the factories etc...
You hit the nail on the head, sort of. The big bang lead to a universe which could make planets and evolve life intelligent enough to build things. Just accept it instead of living in denial and you'll join reality with the rest of us.
For this question to be valid, you need to prove the premise that God needs to have a creator. Can you?
Water is a very simple molecule that forms from oxygen and dihydrogen. It would exist in nebulas because exploded stars create the oxygen from fusion.
Hardly enough to justify all water in the Universe, given the fact that water molecules are destroyed by UV radiation.
Gravity made earth from exploded stardust.
There is no dichotomy between both statements.
Nature isn't random on our scale.
True. It is far more random and thus much harder to succeed by random chance.
Snowflakes are complex too.
Snowflake formation follows a specific law and never existe in a form that is not constrained by this law. Where did this law come from?
The big bang lead to a universe which could make planets and evolve life intelligent enough to build things.
Conditions for the appearance of life are not enough reason for the appearance of life, just a necessary one of them. The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis.
For this question to be valid, you need to prove the premise that God needs to have a creator. Can you?
It's not my burden since god is your assertion. You would need to prove that god is uncreated. However the premises of an argument already give us an answer. If everything requires a creator, then god requires a creator being as a part of everything. If nothing requires a creator (at least in the implied creation ex nilho sense) then the universe was uncreated and is the most elegant solution via Occam's razor.
Hardly enough to justify all water in the Universe, given the fact that water molecules are destroyed by UV radiation.
Hydrogen and Oxygen account for the fist and third most abundant elements, respectively. There's your answer for where the water comes from.
There is no dichotomy between both statements.
Gravity accounts for the earth's formation, god is superfluous. Look up Occam's razor.
True. It is far more random and thus much harder to succeed by random chance.
Nature is random on the quantum scale, but on our scale there is uniformity. The fact that we're here however makes randomness arguments moot.
Snowflake formation follows a specific law and never existe in a form that is not constrained by this law. Where did this law come from?
Just as life follows heredity, mutation, competition for resources, and natural selection, ergo evolution.
The laws of the universe formed at the earliest moments of the big bang. This is still an active area of research, and why we build particle accelerators.
Conditions for the appearance of life are not enough reason for the appearance of life, just a necessary one of them. The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis.
There is no reason in this universe. The laws exist in a way that is conducive to life, and it may or may not form. We are here, which shows the the laws of nature allowed life to form on a planet at least once, although it is probably much more frequent considering the size of the universe.
Actually, yes, it is. Again, can you prove the premise that God needs to have a creator? You're making a claim (God needs a creator). You have Burden of Proof.
If everything requires a creator, then god requires a creator being as a part of everything.
The premise that everything requires a creator relies on the Principle of Causality (everything that is has a cause). The Principle of Causality has been demonstrated to apply to everything in this Universe, but has not been demonstrated to apply beyond it. So unless you can offer a successful demonstration that it applies to beyond it, I have no reason to believe that God requires a creator as well. Again, your argument relies on baseless premises.
If nothing requires a creator
This premise is contradicted by the Principle of Causality (and common sense as well). Be wary of universal premises as they are easily contradicted by counter examples. Your reasoning is unsound.
is the most elegant solution via Occam's razor.
You're misapplying Occam's Razor. Please learn how it works before attemping to use it.
Hydrogen and Oxygen account for the fist and third most abundant elements, respectively. There's your answer for where the water comes from.
They still need to be together and unbound to form water. The fact that they are abundant means nothing if they are an Universe apart from each other. Mere existence of hydrogen and oxygen is not enough to account for all the water, even if they are abundant.
Gravity accounts for the earth's formation, god is superfluous. Look up Occam's razor.
Yet, there is no dichotomy between both statements. There is nothing preventing God using gravity to form the Earth. The statement can be true regardless if God exists or not, and is thus, tautological. Tautological arguments are usually result from circular reasoning.
The fact that we're here however makes randomness arguments moot.
You're affirming the consequence. This is unsound reasoning.
Just as life follows heredity, mutation, competition for resources, and natural selection, ergo evolution.
This statement seem to have nothing to do with the question at hand. What is your point here?
The laws of the universe formed at the earliest moments of the big bang.
So is said, but why?
There is no reason in this universe. The laws exist in a way that is conducive to life, and it may or may not form. We are here, which shows the the laws of nature allowed life to form on a planet at least once, although it is probably much more frequent considering the size of the universe.
Your statement fails to address my point. My point was The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis. We are here, and so what? What does it change the fact that the mere reason that the Universe can support life doesn't mean it will?
Actually, yes, it is. Again, can you prove the premise that God needs to have a creator? You're making a claim (God needs a creator). You have Burden of Proof.
Using the argument from design as a base:
Complex things have a maker.
The universe is complex.
The universe was designed.
(Paraphrased mind you)
Complex things have a maker.
God is complex.
God was designed.
The premise that everything requires a creator relies on the Principle of Causality (everything that is has a cause). The Principle of Causality has been demonstrated to apply to everything in this Universe, but has not been demonstrated to apply beyond it. So unless you can offer a successful demonstration that it applies to beyond it, I have no reason to believe that God requires a creator as well. Again, your argument relies on baseless premises.
What is everything? Everything is omni-inclusive.
Now, what is the universe? Everything. The universe must include everything, there can be no "beyond."
Is god a part of everything? Then he has a cause.
You're misapplying Occam's Razor. Please learn how it works before attemping to use it.
I guess you aren't keeping up with my reasoning. It was:
(If things can pop into existence, creation ex nilho)
God->creation->universe
or
Creation->universe
God is always trimmed away by occam's razor as an unnecessary assumption.
They still need to be together and unbound to form water. The fact that they are abundant means nothing if they are an Universe apart from each other. Mere existence of hydrogen and oxygen is not enough to account for all the water, even if they are abundant.
Why do to continue to argue from incredulity?
Yet, there is no dichotomy between both statements. There is nothing preventing God using gravity to form the Earth. The statement can be true regardless if God exists or not, and is thus, tautological. Tautological arguments are usually result from circular reasoning.
I said superfluous, not dichotomy.
This statement seem to have nothing to do with the question at hand. What is your point here?
Emergence arises from smaller behaviours, accounting where laws come from.
So is said, but why?
There is no why, only a how.
Your statement fails to address my point. My point was The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis. We are here, and so what? What does it change the fact that the mere reason that the Universe can support life doesn't mean it will?
There is no reason, I told you that. Your question is one born out of looking for reason when there is none.
Interesting. So you understand enough about the nature of God to claim that He is complex? Can you back up this claim? Or this just another bare assertion fallacy?
Moreso, what if God needs a creator? How does this supports your position that the Universe does not need a creator?
Now, what is the universe? Everything. The universe must include everything, there can be no "beyond."
Your reasoning is so unsound that it took me a while to understand what was wrong with it. It relies on yet more unproven premises (for which you are under burden of proof as well), which are, 'there can be no beyond,' and 'God is part of everything.' Can you back up those claim, or is this just more of your bare assertions? If you can't, then you must retract it, and your conclusion is incorrect.
God is, by definition, supernatural. He does not need to be part of the Universe, as everything contained by the Universe is natural.
I guess you aren't keeping up with my reasoning.
I tried to find any reasoning, and I couldn't. Your argument is basically "Occam's Razor! Hah, I am right and you are wrong!."
The correct expression is creation ex nihilo, by the way, not nilho, and although spelling mistakes don't really detract from the argument, you've made it twice, so please correct yourself in the future.
The Occam Razor states two things:
Among many unsupported statements, the one that makes the least assumptions is the likeliest to be correct.
None of the statements are well supported. It means that you can claim that your statement is likelier to be correct (I disagree, you make a lot of assumptions that you ignore) because it makes less assumptions, but then you jump from that to claim that your statement is then the correct one. And claim Occam's Razor to back it up.
Why do to continue to argue from incredulity?
I could ask you the same question about God. You demand evidence for my claims, I am demanding evidence for yours. It is a fair game. The idea of an Universe self-creating itself is as outrageous as you claim that the idea of God is.
Emergence arises from smaller behaviours, accounting where laws come from.
Explain. I do not think you know what you are talking about.
There is no why, only a how.
Ah, a nihilist. So, there is no reason for the Universe to have laws?
My point was The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis.
There is no reason, I told you that.
Interesting proposition. If the Big Bang alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis, and there is no further reasons to add, then a godless genesis can not be assumed. Are you aware that you are arguing my point for me?
I believe you are mistaking the meaning of the word reason* in my proposition. You should understand what the Principle of Sufficient Reason states before attempting to argue further.
The bigbang did happen, evidence? Background Microwave Radiation
"Look at the complexity of the human body. The talent, emotion, power to think, look at the nervous system, the skeleton. Open the curtains and look out side.", nature does always create complex things, in fact in nature there is symmetry most of the time. And, with evolution, after a few million iterations (which would happen because of the earth's age), a fairly complex life form that is interdependent with others will occur since life tends to take advantage of the available resources it could use for survival.
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.
9- You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.
4- You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.
2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian
This is your standard "creationist" argument. Look, there is very strong proof that everything you have just said is completely and utterly false. You are the one who must face facts. THERE IS NO GOD.
It only becomes an infinite recursion if you can prove that Causality applies to God. Can you?
So now you're asserting that god is timeless. Considering that god is unknowable by definition (an agent above the natural law cannot be tested or modeled according to natural laws, which form the basis of our knowledge), you're just adding assertions you can't support.
My statement is a logical one. If everything requires a creator, then so does god, and god's creator and so on. This is what logically follows.
Making ad hoc assertions to try and evade this logic requires you to justify those assertions, which isn't possible since god is unknowable.
Interesting. Are you attributing to evolution the formation of water? And the formation of the Universe as well?
I will have to reverse your next answer as addressing them in order would be confusing.
My statement is a logical one. If everything requires a creator, then so does god, and god's creator and so on. This is what logically follows.
The fact that your statement ends in an infinite recursion means your statement is self-defeating, and thus illogical.
Making ad hoc assertions to try and evade this logic requires you to justify those assertions, which isn't possible since god is unknowable.
This isn't really my problem, you see? If you are free to make an assertion that you can't justify - because you claim that God is unknowable - and yet claim that the conclusion that arises from that unjustified assertion is correct and sound, then so can I. I am then, according to your own rules, free to make bare assertions (God is timeless), and claim that my reasoning that follows from it is correct and sound as well. Unfortunately for you, this is not true for any of us, and you still have the burden of proof to your claim that Causality applies to God. Can you?
If you can't, be humble and drop the argument. There is a reason for the fact that no serious philosopher has approached this question using this line of reasoning for more than 50 years.
Now to address your central point...
an agent above the natural law cannot be tested or modeled according to natural laws,
If God is above natural laws, as you state yourself, and entropy and causality are natural laws, as far as we can demonstrate, then God is above entropy and causality, and is thus timeless. Again, unless you can prove that causality applies to beyond our Universe, you have no way to conclude that God needs a cause, or that He can't be timeless.
Interesting. Are you attributing to evolution the formation of water? And the formation of the Universe as well?
I will have to reverse your next answer as addressing them in order would be confusing.
You didn't read the links. The universe and solar system didn't evolve as in biological evolution.
The fact that your statement ends in an infinite recursion means your statement is self-defeating, and thus illogical.
Logic: if the premises are valid and the syllogism consistent, then it must follow.
Everything has a cause. The universe is part of everything. Therefore the universe has a cause.
(God is asserted as the cause)
Everything has a cause. God is a part of everything. Therefore god had a cause.
This isn't really my problem, you see? If you are free to make an assertion that you can't justify - because you claim that God is unknowable - and yet claim that the conclusion that arises from that unjustified assertion is correct and sound, then so can I. I am then, according to your own rules, free to make bare assertions (God is timeless), and claim that my reasoning that follows from it is correct and sound as well.
As the asserter of god, it falls to you to to justify those assertions you make that are tied to god.
My conclusion isn't justified by my word, but by the definition of everything. Everything is omni-inclusive. God must be a part of everything, and if you state that everything has a cause then you are saying that god has a cause.
Unfortunately for you, this is not true for any of us, and you still have the burden of proof to your claim that Causality applies to God. Can you?
Is god a part of everything? If not, then he doesn't exist by definition.
If you can't, be humble and drop the argument. There is a reason for the fact that no serious philosopher has approached this question using this line of reasoning for more than 50 years.
No serious philosopher tries to prove god using logic, not anymore.
If God is above natural laws, as you state yourself, and entropy and causality are natural laws, as far as we can demonstrate, then God is above entropy and causality, and is thus timeless. Again, unless you can prove that causality applies to beyond our Universe, you have no way to conclude that God needs a cause, or that He can't be timeless.
Is god a part of everything? If so, he has a cause.
Did you just say that supernatural things don't have a cause? Then the premise is negated, because not everything has a cause, and so your entire cosmological argument falls apart.
Of course, what you don't realise is that being timeless means no work is done, it implies a fixed state. If you're arguing that god is timeless, then god cannot do anything without becoming "timeful."
You didn't read the links. The universe and solar system didn't evolve as in biological evolution.
The caput was not a question about how the Universe evolved. The caput was a person demanding to know an explanation to where all the water in the Universe came from, to which you answer, "Nature made it." I demanded proof for you claim, and you sent a link explaining evolution. So did evolution made the water, or do you still owe me proof for your claims?
Logic: if the premises are valid and the syllogism consistent, then it must follow.
Go back to College and study Logic all over again. You fail at it and you shame your teachers. God cannot be part of everything if He caused it. If the God was part of the everything, and He needs to exist to be able to cause the Universe, then everything needs to exist before it can be caused.
Your logic is flawed and your premise that God is part of everything that has a cause doesn't hold. It generates a self-defeating argument.
My conclusion isn't justified by my word, but by the definition of everything. Everything is omni-inclusive. God must be a part of everything, and if you state that everything has a cause then you are saying that god has a cause.
I think I already addressed your idea of everything being omni-inclusive. It leads to self-defeating conclusions so it must be wrong. No logically sound and correct statement can lead to self-defeating conclusions. Your claim that God must be a part of everything must still be met with proof that you succeedingly failed to provide so far.
I never stated that everything has a cause. I stated that everything in this Universe has a cause.
Is god a part of everything? If not, then he doesn't exist by definition.
Non sequitur.
No serious philosopher tries to prove god using logic, not anymore.
Alvin Plantinga, Anthony Flew, William Dembsky...
Is god a part of everything? If so, he has a cause.
I am tempted to think that you believe that your strawman was actually a good argument, by the number of times you keep repeating it.
Did you just say that supernatural things don't have a cause? Then the premise is negated, because not everything has a cause, and so your entire cosmological argument falls apart.
Your strawman falls apart, not my argument. I stated that everything in this Universe must have a cause, since this is as far as we demonstrated Causality to apply. If you want it to be applied to supernatural beings, prove. Stating that it does is not proof that it does, no matter how many times you keep stating it.
what you don't realise is that being timeless means no work is done, it implies a fixed state
Ok, now we are cherry picking. So, do "timeless" only mean what you say it means? Or are you claiming yourself to be Humpty Dumpty again, and deciding what the words do mean and do not mean to try to make a point?
The caput was not a question about how the Universe evolved. The caput was a person demanding to know an explanation to where all the water in the Universe came from, to which you answer, "Nature made it." I demanded proof for you claim, and you sent a link explaining evolution. So did evolution made the water, or do you still owe me proof for your claims?
He also asked where the trees came from: Evolution. The formation and evolution of the solar system link explains how the world got here, along with its water.
Go back to College and study Logic all over again. You fail at it and you shame your teachers. God cannot be part of everything if He caused it. If the God was part of the everything, and He needs to exist to be able to cause the Universe, then everything needs to exist before it can be caused.
What is everything? Everything is a word that is omni-inclusive. The notion that there can be everything and something apart from everything is contradictory.
It's like the word universe. A universe implies everything. The concept of a multiverse is only a new idea that hasn't been empirically verified, it's theory without backing, but more importantly the idea to separate the universe into distinct layers is a new redefinition for convenience, before that the multiverse would have really been about discovering that our universe contains more than we thought.
Now I'm not being facetious or mocking you when I ask this, I genuinely need to know, am I going too fast for you? Should I expand my paragraphs more so that you can understand my reasoning?
Your logic is flawed and your premise that God is part of everything that has a cause doesn't hold. It generates a self-defeating argument.
I think I already addressed your idea of everything being omni-inclusive. It leads to self-defeating conclusions so it must be wrong. No logically sound and correct statement can lead to self-defeating conclusions. Your claim that God must be a part of everything must still be met with proof that you succeedingly failed to provide so far.
You're thinking backwards; your need to justify god means you have a conclusion that you're working back from to support.
"Everything has a cause" generates a self-defeating argument, so it cannot be used to premise god's existence.
Your reasoning is "god exists; the universe must have had a cause because everything does." If you follow the premise to its conclusion, the proper way to reason, it cannot hold that god caused the universe, anymore than I caused the universe, because we're both part of 'everything.'
I never stated that everything has a cause. I stated that everything in this Universe has a cause.
Your strawman falls apart, not my argument. I stated that everything in this Universe must have a cause, since this is as far as we demonstrated Causality to apply. If you want it to be applied to supernatural beings, prove. Stating that it does is not proof that it does, no matter how many times you keep stating it.
Which I already stated means "everything." There can be no "outside" of the universe, the universe is an all-inclusive term, if you tried to move beyond the speed of light, to the "edge" of the universe, you'd wrap around to where you started from, like traveling around the earth (unless the universe is flat, but that's a whole other discussion). The idea of a multiverse is conjecture at this point, it's based on theory and unsubstantiated, so the idea is used merely for convenience for describing what might be.
Non sequitur.
Everything is an omni-inclusive word for all that exists and even the ideas within that which exists. Saying god isn't a part of everything means he is not(exist).
Alvin Plantinga, Anthony Flew, William Dembsky...
Let's see, two philosophers who use the discredited teleological argument, and a Christian apologist...
They don't meet my criteria for people who should be taken seriously on the topic, sorry. It's also a shame you include Flew, he must have been senile to argue from design.
Ok, now we are cherry picking. So, do "timeless" only mean what you say it means? Or are you claiming yourself to be Humpty Dumpty again, and deciding what the words do mean and do not mean to try to make a point?
Don't equivocate. Timeless can mean without the capacity to age, as in immortal, but you were using the definition that would imply not existing in time, without causality. Causality is necessary to do anything.
Nature made itself? See, you are begging for an infinite recursion problem too! Nature created nature. What created nature? NATURE! To be honest, a created b makes more sense then B CREATED B!
Nature made itself? See, you are begging for an infinite recursion problem too! Nature created nature. What created nature? NATURE! To be honest, a created b makes more sense then B CREATED B!
Nature taking account of itself is more parsimonious than assuming an infinitely complex, unexplainable entity.
Besides that, you're just invoking a god of the gaps because we don't have the beginning of the big bang worked out yet. Nature works on emergent properties so it's perfectly reasonable to assume a bottom-up approach to the universe's formation, and it doesn't even have to lead to infinite recursion if the stuff of the universe is eternal. God must lead to an infinite recursion because of the premise used to justify it, namely that everything has a cause.
Alright, using your logic to defend my position: You're just invoking a god of the gaps because we don't have the beginning of the creation worked out yet.
Also: god of the gaps? So you admit there is a god?
Alright, using your logic to defend my position: You're just invoking a god of the gaps because we don't have the beginning of the creation worked out yet.
This statement falls into a number of problems.
Thirdly, "creation" isn't meant to be an explanation of anything. It never specifies a mechanism. It's like if you see a cake on a table and ask "how was that cake made?" creation would specify "Bob made it." But you weren't asking for who made it, but HOW the cake was made. Creation further defines itself as supernatural (magic) so its mechanism can never be worked out, since only natural things can be understood this way. Going back to our cake analogy, it would be as if someone said "Bob made it, he spoke the cake into existence [magic words]." Really? How does that work? There still isn't a mechanism specified. Science would give us an explanation like "2 cups flour, 2 eggs, 1 cup milk, 1 cup sugar, 1/2 cup butter, 1 tsp vanilla, 2 tsp baking soda and 1 tsp baking powder were combined and baked in an oiled, aluminum tin. The flour when mixed formed gluten, a polymer protein that traps bubbles of gas which form when baking soda and powder are exposed to an acidic pH and heat, this causes the mixture to rise. The eggs form the texture, they give a spongy texture because of the albumen primarily, with the yolk mostly adding colour. The butter and milk add to flavour, and modify the texture a bit, making it 'fluffy.' The sugar and vanilla are flavouring agents."
Secondly, "creation" is god-based, so invoking a "god of the gaps" on it leads to an infinite recursion, because the god of the gaps would have its own god of the gaps and so on.
Third, "creation" is by its very nature a god of the gaps, because the more we learn, the more apparent it is that there was no creation, so the "story" of creation always tries to exist in what we presently don't know.
Also: god of the gaps? So you admit there is a god?
A god of the gaps means god is used to fill the areas where we lack knowledge.
The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
How do we know God exists? To all Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing
According to the Bible, can one have faith in God but not man, and be right in the eyes of God?
Assuming you have faith in God, you believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins... and you love all people, wicked or not, as family. The only difference is you do not seek instruction or help from other people because they can or maybe corrupt in their understandings.
The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists [...]
The Bible says many things. It baffles me why people will not accept the simplest of its instructions, such us not eating any fish that has no fins or scales (lobster, mussels, crab, etc.) and yet you are perfectly happy accepting what it says about the grandest of all things, the Creator.
If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith.
I am assuming that you see the Creator through the eyes of the Biblical God. If that is the case, then I will tell you this: if that Biblical God is real, and he shows up, then he has a lot to answer for. Because if that God is our parent, then he is guilty of some serious parental neglect.
Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious.
That "something" that you are referring to is consciousness. And you can experience it anytime you want. All you have to do is observe yourself while you are thinking. In an instant you will dis-associate with your brain and you will experience stillness. A very blissful experience indeed. In fact I will agree with you that it is God-ly. But in no way is it proof for the existence of a biblical God.
Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
Millions of children across the world believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Some adults still do. Does this prove that the cause for this widespread belief must be that these entities exist?
It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist.
Let us see the sum of your argument for what it is:
God is great
Existing is great
Therefore God exists.
Surely you can see the fallacies in that argument.
If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
If God is a conceivable being, then it doesn't matter if He exists or not.
Superman is also a great conceivable being. The fact that he does not exist does not alter his status as a great conceivable being.
if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die.
That's not entirely true. We have now discovered that other planets and moons may indeed have life on them, albeit not the kind that you see in the movies. For example we have now discovered large quantities of methane on Mars, which could come either from geological events (mud volcanoes) or biological processes (bacteria or micro-organisms) living under the surface. Europa (a moon made of ice) has also been found to have an ocean 10 times the size of ours underneath the icy surface. On top of that, we have discovered (on Earth) micro-organisms that live in ice! They produce an anti-freeze enzyme that allows them to liquidate the ice around them and thus creating microscopic tunnels. We have found very similar tunnels on Europa.
So, although they may not have humans on them, or complex living organisms, other planets may well harbor life on them. This is of grand importance, because it would prove that life is as much part of the universe as anything else.
Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
Since nothing can be created out of thin air, wouldn't it be more logical to assume that maybe the universe existed forever (albeit evolving and moving all the time)?
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
It does not take a genius to figure out that it is best if we don't kill each other. If we have figured out how to do open heart surgery then surely it's not that hard to figure out a few rules of conduct when living with each other.
Besides, everything that you described has evolved and has at some point been classified in the opposite category (wright/wrong). Nothing is set in stone. Which means that there is no absolute wright or wrong.
Is murder universally rejected? Go tell that to the supporters of the death penalty.
The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him
The only ones I need forgiveness from are my fellow human beings.
If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions.
If God exists the He is also accountable to Us for a myriad of actions that He took or did not take.
If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us.
So if someone proved to you that God does not exist, you would go out there and do whatever you want? Are you telling me the only reason you treat your fellow human beings with dignity and respect is because you think God exists?
Can you please explain why don't all atheists become lying, murdering, cheating, stealing scums?
That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God.
Believing in evolution is not an alternative to believing in a creator. Is it not possible that the Creator made the space in which evolution took place?
God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists.
No, not everyone. That is your opinion.
The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
LOL
To all Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace.
What you are hearing is your consciousness. When you have identified with your brain so much, the voice of your consciousness sounds so alien that you are convinced it must come from someone other than you.
You are the presence. You are the leading force. You are the love. You are the grace.
If you silence your sense of self for a moment you will allow your consciousness to emerge.
None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious
I respectfully submit that sentence for your consideration.
why people will not accept the simplest of its instructions, such us not eating any fish that has no fins or scales (lobster, mussels, crab, etc.)
Have you read of seafood and shellfish allergy? Guess what kind of seafood causes those? Lobsters? Check. Mussels? Check. Crabs? Check. Now did you know that you can develop shellfish allergy during your adulthood? That's a very interesting point, because if God didn't warn the Israeli people against those foods, people would claim that an all-knowing God should know better.
Shellfish is the most common form of allergy in adults and can cause death through anaphylactic shock. We started eating them for the same reason that people no longer dig holes in their yards to crap on. Technology allows us to get away with it. However, Israeli people didn't have the same luck. For them, shellfish allergy meant death.
he has a lot to answer for. Because if that God is our parent, then he is guilty of some serious parental neglect.
So said the rebel teenager that demands his father to pay the fines for his crimes.
That "something" that you are referring to is consciousness.
If it was mere consciousness, there would be a general agreement regarding this, since everyone is conscious, but since not everyone is religious, it is clear that it is something besides consciousness.
Does this prove that the cause for this widespread belief must be that these entities exist?
You are correct here. He was attempting a proof by popularity fallacy. However, the psicologysts agree that 'Spirituality' is a human characteristic, although not always expressed by the means of a religion.
Surely you can see the fallacies in that argument.
Surely you know you are making a strawman, right? An argument that have existed for almost a thousand years and is constantly being revised and criticized is not a stupid fallacy, or it would have been dropped long ago, instead of resisting for a millenia.
Superman is also a great conceivable being. The fact that he does not exist does not alter his status as a great conceivable being.
The ontological argument does not rely on being 'great' but on being 'the greatest.' Again, I think you should study it a little more before jumping to conclusions.
For example we have now discovered large quantities of methane on Mars, which could come either from geological events (mud volcanoes) or biological processes (bacteria or micro-organisms) living under the surface.
And because it could be caused by biological processes, then it was? What's preventing Mars from being a completely lifeless planet and all the methane have been created through mud volcanoes?
we have discovered (on Earth) micro-organisms that live in ice! They produce an anti-freeze enzyme that allows them to liquidate the ice around them and thus creating microscopic tunnels.
And guess what? If life was either a little closer or a little farther away from the Sun, they wouldn't exist either! Either because ice wouldn't be able to be formed (too close), or because it would refreeze too quickly (too far).
We have found very similar tunnels on Europa.
Citation needed. I never heard of this, but I am pretty sure it is speculation based on long distance photography.
although they may not have humans on them, or complex living organisms, other planets may well harbor life on them.
Yes, they may. We haven't found any yet, though. Only possibilities and good possibilities.
Since nothing can be created out of thin air, wouldn't it be more logical to assume that maybe the universe existed forever
Actually, stuff can more or less be created out of thin air (from massless energy, actually) in a process called Pair Production, and the Universe cannot have existed forever because of the entropy. There is no know process by which entropy can be reduced, and an Universe that has existed since forever would have infinite entropy and would have long decaied into heat death.
It does not take a genius to figure out that it is best if we don't kill each other
Why? I mean, if I kill you, I get to have all that you have, for free. Why is it best if I don't kill you? I have to share food, water, women, and other resources with you.
If we have figured out how to do open heart surgery then surely it's not that hard to figure out a few rules of conduct when living with each other.
That would have been a good argument if morality was a product of modern civilization. It isn't. It is as old as mankind, kind of one of the first things we "figured out".
Is murder universally rejected? Go tell that to the supporters of the death penalty.
Murder is defined in the dictionary as killing a person without a justified reason. Death Penalty is, in the mind of its supporters, justified by the crimes of the person.
If God exists the He is also accountable to Us for a myriad of actions that He took or did not take.
Is your father accountable to you for not giving you a bicycle when you were ten years old?
Can you please explain why don't all atheists become lying, murdering, cheating, stealing scums?
Peer pressure.
Is it not possible that the Creator made the space in which evolution took place?
Not the Christian God, but it is a valid possibility for other gods.
Have you read of seafood and shellfish allergy? Guess what kind of seafood causes those? Lobsters? Check. Mussels? Check. Crabs? Check. Now did you know that you can develop shellfish allergy during your adulthood? That's a very interesting point, because if God didn't warn the Israeli people against those foods, people would claim that an all-knowing God should know better.
Which misses the point completely. Also an all-knowing god would make these animals hypo-allergic.
So said the rebel teenager that demands his father to pay the fines for his crimes.
Again missing the point.
If it was mere consciousness, there would be a general agreement regarding this, since everyone is conscious, but since not everyone is religious, it is clear that it is something besides consciousness.
Besides the fact that people as a group rarely agree on anything, consciousness and transcendental experiences are still under active research, and the situation is further exacerbated by religious people who take credit for a natural human ability. Here's the funny part: every religion has people who have these experiences, and all religions can't be true, as they contradict each other, so the experience must unrelated to religious beliefs.
Surely you know you are making a strawman, right? An argument that have existed for almost a thousand years and is constantly being revised and criticized is not a stupid fallacy, or it would have been dropped long ago, instead of resisting for a millenia.
The ontological argument was debunked a long time ago, as just another poor argument. The fallacy within it is obvious: you can't conceive something into existence or define it into existence. It is an a priori argument that attempts to define the greatest being, then expects it to exist in reality, with the crutch of it being that as far as reality is concerned, existence isn't any better or grander than nonexistence. That's just a human preference.
The ontological argument does not rely on being 'great' but on being 'the greatest.' Again, I think you should study it a little more before jumping to conclusions.
I really can't believe you're defending it. It shows how desperate you are to hold onto something so obviously wrong.
And because it could be caused by biological processes, then it was? What's preventing Mars from being a completely lifeless planet and all the methane have been created through mud volcanoes?
Did you not read his argument? He suggested life as a fair possibility.
Also look at Gliese 581 d for an example of a planet which is in an earth-like zone.
Actually, stuff can more or less be created out of thin air (from massless energy, actually) in a process called Pair Production, and the Universe cannot have existed forever because of the entropy. There is no know process by which entropy can be reduced, and an Universe that has existed since forever would have infinite entropy and would have long decaied into heat death.
It's possible that whatever lead up to the big bang existed forever, and it's within the realm of speculation that our universe is cyclical. Bear in mind that the laws of our universe were formed very early in the big bang, which is why it's basically impossible to know anything beyond it. Asserting a god is just ignorance.
Why? I mean, if I kill you, I get to have all that you have, for free. Why is it best if I don't kill you? I have to share food, water, women, and other resources with you.
That does seem to be how religious people think, especially looking at war. In the real world you get punished for breaking rules. There isn't a god enforcing them, but man. We can examine animals to see how morality could evolve, because remember that we are social creatures and had to survive in tribes.
Murder is defined in the dictionary as killing a person without a justified reason. Death Penalty is, in the mind of its supporters, justified by the crimes of the person.
Yet it isn't justified according to the laws of a number of modern nations, meaning the supporters of the death penalty support murder according to those nations.
Is your father accountable to you for not giving you a bicycle when you were ten years old?
You're really good at missing the point.
Of course, religion warps minds so I'm not surprised.
Peer pressure.
Illustrating my point exactly. Your sense of morality has been warped so that you cannot think for yourself but instead look to an authority. We sane people are much more moral than you could ever be.
No, I didn't. Those kinds of food were prohibited because they would lead to unnecessary deaths. It was a protection measure. Of course, you can keep claiming it makes no sense all the way into forever. It won't change the fact that those kind of prohibitions were necessary at that point of mankind's development and no longer are needed.
Also an all-knowing god would make these animals hypo-allergic.
God is hardly responsible for diseases. Since not everyone is allergic to them, you could say that God made them hypo-allergic.
Again missing the point.
Bare statement. Tell me how. What's the central point that I miss?
every religion has people who have these experiences, and all religions can't be true, as they contradict each other, so the experience must unrelated to religious beliefs.
You're making a hasty generalization. Just because most of them can be presumed false (since all religions can't be true), doesn't follow that all of them can be presumed false.
The ontological argument was debunked a long time ago, as just another poor argument
The formal ontological argument, yes. The argument has been revised and refined since then.
I really can't believe you're defending it. It shows how desperate you are to hold onto something so obviously wrong.
Actually, it shows your lack of knowledge of philosophy. If it was 'obviously wrong,' philosophers would have dropped it long ago, like they have dropped the 'God needs a cause' argument long ago. In spite of this fact, you seem to be fond of it.
He suggested life as a fair possibility.
Fair possibility doesn't make it so. Sorry.
It's possible that whatever lead up to the big bang existed forever,
Mere existence of the 'whatever' is not enough reason for The Big Bang to have happened. There is a need for an explanation for what caused the change of state.
and it's within the realm of speculation that our universe is cyclical.
If you dare to enter the 'realm of speculation' you have no reason to defy the existence of God, as you will forced to give explanations that are supernatural in nature. Moreso, a cyclical Universe only moves the answer to what started the cycle. It also begs the question of how the entropy can be reversed.
Bear in mind that the laws of our universe were formed very early in the big bang, which is why it's basically impossible to know anything beyond it.
No, they weren't. What was formed very early in the Big Bang were gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. A lot of laws very already in place from instant 0. Causality is an example. If causality was not already in place, the Big Bang would have accomplished nothing, since no modification of state can happen without causality existing.
That does seem to be how religious people think, especially looking at war.
Good, subtle ad hominem. Very well applied, but still an ad hominem. Given the fact that now all wars are religious in nature, I believe you owe me apologies for the ad hominem.
In the real world you get punished for breaking rules. There isn't a god enforcing them,
Interesting. Have you tried to fly? What? Gravity won't let you? Because you can break any law created by men, and sometimes even get away with it, but what is preventing you from breaking the Law of Gravitation?
meaning the supporters of the death penalty support murder according to those nations.
And your point is? I am under soreveign of the USA now, and I am subjected to American law now, just because I am human and live on Earth?
You're really good at missing the point.
What point I am missing? The part where you claim to be morally superior to God, and thus deems God subjected to your own twisted and warped version of morality? Given the fact that I am also human and I deem God to be innocent of any crimes, what makes your version of morality better than my version of morality? Or of any other person, for that matter? Are you really that egocentrical that you deem your own sense of morality to be flawless?
Illustrating my point exactly. Your sense of morality has been warped so that you cannot think for yourself but instead look to an authority.
Peer pressure has nothing to do with looking to an authority, but with need for acceptance. Obviously, you would know it if you looked at it at Wikipedia or another Encyclopedia, instead of confusing it with peer review.
We sane people are much more moral than you could ever be.
No, I didn't. Those kinds of food were prohibited because they would lead to unnecessary deaths. It was a protection measure. Of course, you can keep claiming it makes no sense all the way into forever. It won't change the fact that those kind of prohibitions were necessary at that point of mankind's development and no longer are needed.
He was making the point that religious people will bite into dogma that promises big things but overlook small details.
God is hardly responsible for diseases. Since not everyone is allergic to them, you could say that God made them hypo-allergic.
Did god make the universe (according to you)? Yes. Does the universe contain disease? Yes. Then god is responsible, as the maker and final authority of everything.
Also, why should an all-knowing god make something that produces a protein or chemical that makes some people break out in allergy?
Bare statement. Tell me how. What's the central point that I miss?
God being neglectful is the fault of god, not us.
You're making a hasty generalization. Just because most of them can be presumed false (since all religions can't be true), doesn't follow that all of them can be presumed false.
That's not what I said. I said these experiences are independent of religion.
The formal ontological argument, yes. The argument has been revised and refined since then.
Which doesn't matter because the argument will always be a bare assertion.
Actually, it shows your lack of knowledge of philosophy. If it was 'obviously wrong,' philosophers would have dropped it long ago, like they have dropped the 'God needs a cause' argument long ago. In spite of this fact, you seem to be fond of it.
If flat earth was obviously wrong, people would have dropped it long ago. Oh wait:
Didn't say it did. Just that it's a good argument and you're poking it for not explaining everything at the moment, as if science is a finished work.
Mere existence of the 'whatever' is not enough reason for The Big Bang to have happened. There is a need for an explanation for what caused the change of state.
If you dare to enter the 'realm of speculation' you have no reason to defy the existence of God, as you will forced to give explanations that are supernatural in nature. Moreso, a cyclical Universe only moves the answer to what started the cycle. It also begs the question of how the entropy can be reversed.
You're cute for shoehorning god into speculation, as if "god" is a concept coherent enough and established enough to be in the same league as physics speculation.
A circle has no beginning. That's the point.
And the question about entropy is a good one, guess we'll learn one day won't we? That's because science is good at answering questions.
No, they weren't. What was formed very early in the Big Bang were gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. A lot of laws very already in place from instant 0. Causality is an example. If causality was not already in place, the Big Bang would have accomplished nothing, since no modification of state can happen without causality existing.
Also remember that this discussion is entirely speculation and educated guesses until we build some really big particle colliders.
Interesting. Have you tried to fly? What? Gravity won't let you? Because you can break any law created by men, and sometimes even get away with it, but what is preventing you from breaking the Law of Gravitation?
Sorry, stating that the laws of nature are god's laws is a bare assertion. Unless I buy into it your sentence makes no sense.
And your point is? I am under soreveign of the USA now, and I am subjected to American law now, just because I am human and live on Earth?
My point is that your definition of murder isn't very useful in the debate. Also, it was probably wrong of him to use "murder" as the verb, he should have used "kill." It would be more defensible.
What point I am missing?
That irregardless of whether you define god to be magically unaccountable to morality, the fact remains that god (if it exists) has been indifferent to us, negligent.
The part where you claim to be morally superior to God, and thus deems God subjected to your own twisted and warped version of morality?
Seeing as I never cast anyone into hell, sentenced a world's inhabitants to death, condoned wars in my name, encouraged misogyny and prejudice towards countless groups, and so on, I can indeed claim higher moral ground than your god.
But seeing as your morality comes from obedience to an authority, you cannot understand the moral sense that I have and so it confounds you how the authority of your morals can be immoral.
Given the fact that I am also human and I deem God to be innocent of any crimes, what makes your version of morality better than my version of morality? Or of any other person, for that matter?
It really all depends on how you choose to measure morality. However if we exit the land of idle speculation for a moment and look at the real world, we see that man has erected courthouses in an attempt to answer this question, and I guarantee you that there isn't a human court out there in the civilised world that would acquit your god of atrocities.
Are you really that egocentrical that you deem your own sense of morality to be flawless?
I never claimed it to be flawless, I do believe however that I can defend the claim that I have an exceptional sense of morality in spite of being an amoral person.
Peer pressure has nothing to do with looking to an authority, but with need for acceptance. Obviously, you would know it if you looked at it at Wikipedia or another Encyclopedia, instead of confusing it with peer review.
He was making the point that religious people will bite into dogma that promises big things but overlook small details.
The reason for those small details ceased to be. The reason for the big details didn't.
Then god is responsible, as the maker and final authority of everything.
Maker, yes. Final authority? Hardly. We still have free will. Lots of things happen that God is not responsible for.
God being neglectful is the fault of god, not us.
He isn't being neglectful. We refused his aid.
I said these experiences are independent of religion.
And I said that you can't affirm with all certainty that all of them are independent of religion. You can only affirm that there are some experiences considered 'religious' in nature that are not religious.
If flat earth was obviously wrong, people would have dropped it long ago. Oh wait:
Yeah, I know. Those scientists never give up when they believe something, even when proven wrong over and over. Like those evolutionists guy that are still at it, even after 150 years of being proven wrong over and over.
Didn't say it did.
Oh, yes, you did. Your sentence was, "We have now discovered that other planets and moons may indeed have life on them, albeit not the kind that you see in the movies."
Timeline of Big Bang
Showing what happened planck time after the Big Bang already happened is reason for the Big Bang to have happened how? You completely missed the point.
You're cute for shoehorning god into speculation, as if "god" is a concept coherent enough and established enough to be in the same league as physics speculation.
I am not entirely sure of what fallacies you are commiting in this sentence. It is certainly an ad hominem with absolutely no substance behind it, but is there anything else as well. This sentence will be an interesting case study. You are cute for shoehorning ad hominem into nearly every sentence of yours, though. You can certainly type a lot and write nothing.
A circle has no beginning. That's the point.
And that applies to the question at hand, how?
And the question about entropy is a good one, guess we'll learn one day won't we?
No, we won't. We won't be alive to see it happen.
Also remember that this discussion is entirely speculation and educated guesses until we build some really big particle colliders.
We already have very big particle colliders. What we need is particle colliders that are as big as the Earth radius. We ain't getting any of those anytime soon. Anyway, thank you for confirming my argument that the only laws that appeared after the Big Bang are the ones reigning over the four fundamental forces. All the others were in place from time 0, thank you.
Sorry, stating that the laws of nature are god's laws is a bare assertion
You failed to address my point. Answer it.
I have no more time to address your points. I have to leave. I will address the others tomorrow.
The reason for those small details ceased to be. The reason for the big details didn't.
He was using examples of small things, there are plenty of others that are relevant but ignored, like the rules that say we must punish a rapist unless it occurred in a city in which case we must punish the rapist and the woman. How about more sections from leviticus that demand garments not be made of mixed materials, and crops not be mixed? There are hundreds of rules.
Maker, yes. Final authority? Hardly. We still have free will. Lots of things happen that God is not responsible for.
Disease isn't an issue of free will. A disease exists independently of us and irregardless of the choices we make, it also doesn't arise because our will made it come into existence.
He isn't being neglectful. We refused his aid.
You can spin it however you want so you can have peace of mind, but neglect is neglect no matter what you call it.
And I said that you can't affirm with all certainty that all of them are independent of religion. You can only affirm that there are some experiences considered 'religious' in nature that are not religious.
I believe I just made that affirmation. If religion A leads to experience A and religion B leads to experience A, and religions A and B contradict each other, then experience A must not be because of the contradictory parts, if it were we'd have experiences unique in their mechanics to the religion.
Yeah, I know. Those scientists never give up when they believe something, even when proven wrong over and over. Like those evolutionists guy that are still at it, even after 150 years of being proven wrong over and over.
Evolution is a fact, flat earth isn't, and you changing the topic doesn't make your reasoning any less faulty.
Oh, yes, you did. Your sentence was, "We have now discovered that other planets and moons may indeed have life on them, albeit not the kind that you see in the movies."
Argento said that, not I.
Showing what happened planck time after the Big Bang already happened is reason for the Big Bang to have happened how? You completely missed the point.
Knowing how it unfolded will allow us to know how the laws became as they were.
I am not entirely sure of what fallacies you are commiting in this sentence. It is certainly an ad hominem with absolutely no substance behind it, but is there anything else as well. This sentence will be an interesting case study. You are cute for shoehorning ad hominem into nearly every sentence of yours, though. You can certainly type a lot and write nothing.
I like to deride people who deserve it.
And that applies to the question at hand, how?
Moreso, a cyclical Universe only moves the answer to what started the cycle.
A circle cannot have a beginning. If the universe is cyclical it has no beginning or end.
No, we won't. We won't be alive to see it happen.
You don't know that. We could find the answer in twenty years.
We already have very big particle colliders. What we need is particle colliders that are as big as the Earth radius. We ain't getting any of those anytime soon. Anyway, thank you for confirming my argument that the only laws that appeared after the Big Bang are the ones reigning over the four fundamental forces. All the others were in place from time 0, thank you.
In the real world you get punished for breaking rules. There isn't a god enforcing them,
You said:
Interesting. Have you tried to fly? What? Gravity won't let you? Because you can break any law created by men, and sometimes even get away with it, but what is preventing you from breaking the Law of Gravitation?
You asserted without justification that god backs rules like gravity.
That's a very interesting point, because if God didn't warn the Israeli people against those foods, people would claim that an all-knowing God should know better.
Two points:
1. Does the Bible contain warnings against every single cause for deadly allergies?
2. Are you asserting that some parts of the Bible do not apply to us today (for whatever reason)?
So said the rebel teenager that demands his father to pay the fines for his crimes.
I am not a teenager. I am not rebeling against your God. I do not want him to pay for any of my crimes.
But if your God is real, and he is our "father", and he is all powerful, and he loves us... then reason would suggest that He is a very neglectful parent when it comes to stopping a tsunami from killing hundreds of thousands of his beloved children (among which are quite a few innocent babies).
Especially given that He has in the past intervened with human history.
Not only that, but He also seems to be an unfair and choosy parent.
Does it not bother you that this Biblical God has a favorite people (Israel)?
If it was mere consciousness, there would be a general agreement regarding this, since everyone is conscious
That is far from the truth. Most people, me included, live most of their lives either rehashing the past or in some projected future created by the mind.
We are slaves of our brains, and that is why we are rarely conscious.
An argument that have existed for almost a thousand years and is constantly being revised and criticized is not a stupid fallacy, or it would have been dropped long ago, instead of resisting for a millenia.
I'm afraid it is. If you would like me to break down the specific fallacies contained in the argument that "silaswash" presented then please let me know. But before I do, please, read his statement again.
The ontological argument does not rely on being 'great' but on being 'the greatest.'
Two points:
1. By who's standards is he the greatest?
2. If there was a consensus that God is indeed the greatest conceivable being, does the possibility of Him not being a real being alter His status as the aforementioned?
And because it could be caused by biological processes, then it was? What's preventing Mars from being a completely lifeless planet and all the methane have been created through mud volcanoes?
Cue applause. I just wish you would apply the same inquiring mind when it comes to assertions made in your Bible, such as God created the world in 7 days.
Citation needed. I never heard of this, but I am pretty sure it is speculation based on long distance photography.
It is based on high-res photos and also on our findings of identical patterns here on earth.
By the way, to go back to my previous point: when you read your Bible, did you at any point shout "Citation needed" after what you read?
Actually, stuff can more or less be created out of thin air (from massless energy, actually) in a process called Pair Production
Cool. Let's look at Pair Production since you brought it up.
The creation of a particle (and its antiparticle) usually from a photon.
For this to happen you need enough energy to create the pair, and that energy must be at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles.
So guess what. It's not out of thin air after all.
There is no know process by which entropy can be reduced, and an Universe that has existed since forever would have infinite entropy and would have long decaied into heat death.
You are trying to apply a simple thermodynamic model to the universe in general. For this model to work, the space and energy must be finite. Since the universe appears to be infinite you cannot speculate by using entropy.
Furthermore, even if this model could be applied to the universe, the fact that the universe is expanding, means that the maximum possible entropy is also rising. This actually moves us further away from heat death, not closer.
Why? I mean, if I kill you, I get to have all that you have, for free. Why is it best if I don't kill you? I have to share food, water, women, and other resources with you.
Please consider the following:
1. Is believing in the Biblical God the only reason that stops you from killing me?
2. Is it by chance that the millions of people who don't believe in the Christian God don't go out killing each other?
3. Is it by chance that the ancient civilizations, before Christ and the Bible came out, valued human life and good behavior?
That would have been a good argument if morality was a product of modern civilization. It isn't. It is as old as mankind, kind of one of the first things we "figured out".
Who said modern? The greek Hippocrates and the ancient Egyptians performed loads of surgical procedures. That was even before Christianity came about.
it was also during that time that most famous philosophers examined the human condition and came up with great ideas and findings.
Murder is defined in the dictionary as killing a person without a justified reason. Death Penalty is, in the mind of its supporters, justified by the crimes of the person.
If murder is universally rejected, and murder must have a justified reason, should the justification for murder be also universally accepted?
Is your father accountable to you for not giving you a bicycle when you were ten years old?
No. But that was not what I meant with my argument.
If the Christian God is real and he has power over the physical world, and he knows that a tsunami is about to kill thousands of us, then is He not accountable for safeguarding us from an event we are powerless to prevent? What kind of parent is that? Can you find me a human parent who, in good mind, would not prevent something bad from happening to their children if they could? No.
Does that not suggest that the Creator is not bound to the descriptions and characteristics provided in the Bible?
Peer pressure.
So all the atheists and non Christians out there who are well behaved, only do so because of peer pressure...
At this point I will withdraw from this debate and bow to your superior understanding of human nature. That explanation is clearly beyond anything I can comprehend and puts you way ahead of me both intellectually and philosophically.
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence.
If something is taken on faith then by definition there is no evidence.
Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
It is also deep within us to discriminate against each other based on skin colour, sexual preferences, gender, nationality, the way we look, our friends, ect. A strong intuitive hunch doesn't validate something's existence, or merit.
What causes this belief is eons of poor reasoning skills, primitive minds, hucksters who parade lies around expecting gullible people like yourself to buy into it.
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
Biblical arguments have no basis in fact. It is a mythology, and cannot be evidence.
There are no logical arguments that prove god's existence, either, because every single one suffers from a non sequitur or faulty premise. Your ontological argument falls into the category of non sequitur, because you cannot define something into existence, neither can you conceptualise it into existence. Your argument breaks apart from its line of reasoning by defining a concept, god, then creating a subjective premise (or rational premise, depending on context) which belongs to a different type of argument, and ends with a contradiction (god being contradicted) in which it is then assumed that reality must be discarded instead of the definition of god. The major premise doesn't belong with the minor premise and therefore the conclusion doesn't follow.
I'll illustrate your error with an example:
I define human tissue to have strength greater than that which can be conceived.
I add the premise that to be strongest is greater than to be strong.
Therefore human tissue must be strongest, because if it wasn't, it would go against its definition.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
This has a wrong premise and tautology.
"A made thing has a maker"
"A designed thing has a designer"
"A built thing has a builder"
You use a premise to justify a conclusion, and befuddle this with faulty premises concerning probability.
Evolution for example designs things without being a designer.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
Self-contradiction. If everything (that's what a universe is, everything, there is no outside to the universe, because that becomes part of it) has a cause because it is an effect, then who or what caused god? Who caused the thing that caused god? And so on.
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
Morality is subjective with no basis in reality, so how can it be used to justify an objective thing? You may as well use blueness, or hot, or sweet as arguments for god.
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
Quoting mythology doesn't make an authoritative or convincing argument, it makes you look like a fool.
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions.
We are responsible to ourselves. God is irrelevant. You may as well invoke pixies as being our moral authority.
If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us.
Ah, but what about:
Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected.
That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
You have it backwards. People believe in creationism as a means to reject science and our natural origins. Your denial of science is made most clear in these types of rants of yours, as is your deep down knowledge that there is no god, only a void that you dedicate your life to filling with sophistry that a child can see through.
How do we know God exists? To all Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace.
Imaginary friends are cool for children, sad for adults.
In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing
If something is taken on faith then by definition there is no evidence.
Is that one more of your bare assertion fallacies? Faith and evidence are not dichotomies. Taking something on faith means you are not looking for evidence, not that they do not exist.
It is also deep within us to discriminate against each other based on skin colour, sexual preferences, gender, nationality, the way we look, our friends, ect
Actually, it isn't. Young children do not discriminate, and only start to do so by mimicking the behavior of adults around them.
What causes this belief is eons of poor reasoning skills, primitive minds, hucksters who parade lies around expecting gullible people like yourself to buy into it.
Interesting. Presentism found so early in the discussion, and couple with straightfoward offenses. Bold internet guy is bold. I didn't expect the discussion to drop down to the level of name calling so quickly, except maybe by the atheist militia. They always seem to believe that name calling is a good way to argue. I didn't downvote your other arguments, but I will downvote this one solely due to the name calling so maybe you still stop this in the foreseeable future. I don't think so, due to the fact that you seem to become less and less civil as you are becoming bolder in your arguments, but one can hope. One can always hope.
The interesting aspect is that you don't mind citing those people of primitive minds and poor reasoning skills when they agree with you, like when you cited Hume in another thread.
Biblical arguments have no basis in fact. It is a mythology, and cannot be evidence.
I disagree with you calling it a mythology. A good deal of the Bible has been proven by archeology and is firmly based in facts. Surely, there is little to no evidence of the miraculous claims (like the Flood, the Ten Plagues, etc), but there certainly happened an Exodus from Egypt, and most names of kings and civilizations listed on the Bible have been confirmed by archeological findings, and there certainly existed a Jewish Priest called Jesus around the 1st century. It is true, however, that the Bible alone cannot be used to prove God's existence since it would be circular reasoning.
Your revision of the ontological argument is laughable. Your Logic teacher, if you ever had one, would be shamed by it. You are attempting to apply the rules of a categorical syllogism in a sequence of premises that are not a categorical syllogism, but inductive reasoning. Learn the difference and review the argument. Just because premises exist do not make the argument a syllogism.
And the argument is also not a non sequitur. A non sequitur is something that does not follow from the premises. It does not matter if the premises are sound or correct or not. It only matters if the conclusion follows from them, and it does. It relies on an axiom called "S5" to reach such conclusion.
Your 'illustration' of the argument is laughable as well. Please study the argument before attempting to address it. People smarter than you and me coined it, and people smarter than you and me attempted to counter it. You shame them and yourself by making an strawman of the argument with your reasoning. A little modesty on your side to understand that you're just not as good as they are wouldn't hurt.
This has a wrong premise and tautology.
You stated such, but did not state which ones were they. As far as I know, it seems to be that you are throwing around random terms, hoping to sound smart and convincing.
You use a premise to justify a conclusion,
As far as philosophy and rationality is concerned, this is how critical thinking should work, so he is correct, and you are shaming yourself again.
Evolution for example designs things without being a designer.
You're assuming evolution to be true. And evolution doesn't design anything. If evolution "designed" something as you say it does, it would be the designer. Although I can see your point (evolution is a process through which something that appears designed could have arised would being designed), you are still assuming evolution to be true.
then who or what caused god? Who caused the thing that caused god?
I think I already address this argument of yours twice, so I will refrain from doing it again here. You are incorrect.
Morality is subjective with no basis in reality, so how can it be used to justify an objective thing?
Morality cannot be subjective if certain aspects of it are shown to be universal. And you didn't really address his points, did you know it?
Quoting mythology doesn't make an authoritative or convincing argument, it makes you look like a fool.
He wasn't making an argument. Quoting a book, "mythology" or not, is perfectly fine if it shows an opinion you want to share. You are becoming increasingly aggressive and derisive, and that only serves to show the quality of reasoning that you can do. The remaining of your arguments are also merely derisions and bare assertions. I won't bother addressing them.
Is that one more of your bare assertion fallacies? Faith and evidence are not dichotomies. Taking something on faith means you are not looking for evidence, not that they do not exist.
You changed the topic of argument to the words themselves.
Note that I said "something of faith." If you have evidence of something, you need no faith to accept that something. If you believe in something by faith, then you have no evidence of it.
Actually, it isn't. Young children do not discriminate, and only start to do so by mimicking the behavior of adults around them.
Interesting. Presentism found so early in the discussion, and couple with straightfoward offenses. Bold internet guy is bold. I didn't expect the discussion to drop down to the level of name calling so quickly, except maybe by the atheist militia.
Looks like you didn't address what I said.
I didn't downvote your other arguments, but I will downvote this one solely due to the name calling so maybe you still stop this in the foreseeable future. I don't think so, due to the fact that you seem to become less and less civil as you are becoming bolder in your arguments, but one can hope. One can always hope.
It's hard to avoid name calling when people say really dumb things.
I disagree with you calling it a mythology. A good deal of the Bible has been proven by archeology and is firmly based in facts. Surely, there is little to no evidence of the miraculous claims (like the Flood, the Ten Plagues, etc), but there certainly happened an Exodus from Egypt, and most names of kings and civilizations listed on the Bible have been confirmed by archeological findings, and there certainly existed a Jewish Priest called Jesus around the 1st century. It is true, however, that the Bible alone cannot be used to prove God's existence since it would be circular reasoning.
The Odyssey happened in Turkey, and we know that Troy existed, so I object to calling it a mythology.
Your revision of the ontological argument is laughable. Your Logic teacher, if you ever had one, would be shamed by it. You are attempting to apply the rules of a categorical syllogism in a sequence of premises that are not a categorical syllogism, but inductive reasoning. Learn the difference and review the argument. Just because premises exist do not make the argument a syllogism.
Incorrect, it is deductive reasoning (a priori cannot be inductive). Also, I'm still correct in my assessment, the minor premise is subjective, an assertion.
And the argument is also not a non sequitur. A non sequitur is something that does not follow from the premises. It does not matter if the premises are sound or correct or not. It only matters if the conclusion follows from them, and it does. It relies on an axiom called "S5" to reach such conclusion.
Object defined to exist does not follow into it existing.
Your 'illustration' of the argument is laughable as well. Please study the argument before attempting to address it. People smarter than you and me coined it, and people smarter than you and me attempted to counter it. You shame them and yourself by making an strawman of the argument with your reasoning. A little modesty on your side to understand that you're just not as good as they are wouldn't hurt.
Seeing as that was the first time I encountered that argument written that way, and I countered it successfully, looks like I'm smarter than you and the maker of that argument. Or not, because it doesn't depend on smartness anyway, but reasoning skills and personal biases (which the makers of the ontological arguments had in abundance).
You stated such, but did not state which ones were they. As far as I know, it seems to be that you are throwing around random terms, hoping to sound smart and convincing.
Complex things don't require design, necessarily. And a tautology from a loaded word like design/designer.
As far as philosophy and rationality is concerned, this is how critical thinking should work, so he is correct, and you are shaming yourself again.
You misread it. When the premise and conclusion are the same, it is a tautology.
You're assuming evolution to be true. And evolution doesn't design anything. If evolution "designed" something as you say it does, it would be the designer. Although I can see your point (evolution is a process through which something that appears designed could have arised would being designed), you are still assuming evolution to be true.
You assume gravity is true.
Morality cannot be subjective if certain aspects of it are shown to be universal. And you didn't really address his points, did you know it?
We're still waiting on those objective things. Remember that a standard isn't an objective thing, but an arbitrary collection of subjective things that people agree upon.
Besides that, I thought it was obvious that he was using a god of the gaps after inventing a need.
He wasn't making an argument. Quoting a book, "mythology" or not, is perfectly fine if it shows an opinion you want to share. You are becoming increasingly aggressive and derisive, and that only serves to show the quality of reasoning that you can do. The remaining of your arguments are also merely derisions and bare assertions. I won't bother addressing them.
He wasn't sharing an opinion, he was using the bible to support his argument that we are wrong.
Note that I said "something of faith." If you have evidence of something, you need no faith to accept that something. If you believe in something by faith, then you have no evidence of it.
Except that it was not what you said. You said that if you believe something by faith, then evidence does not exist.
Robber's Cave Experiment
They were twelve years old. They were already prejudiced prior to the experiment. That proves nothing. Childrens in kindengarden are not prejudiced.
Looks like you didn't address what I said.
You didn't have an argument. Only bare assertions and name calling. Nothing to address. I don't have to address every nonsense you can came up with in your head, specially since they are not backed up by evidence.
It's hard to avoid name calling when people say really dumb things.
I know. I am having a hard time addressing your "arguments" in a civil manner. Your poor grasp of Logic is the worst part since I have to demonstrate it to be wrong, instead of simply dismissing your bare assertions as being mere bare assertions.
The Odyssey happened in Turkey, and we know that Troy existed, so I object to calling it a mythology.
Fair enough. Provide me archeological evidence for the history of the Odyssey and we stop.
Incorrect, it is deductive reasoning (a priori cannot be inductive).
I stand corrected, it is deductive reasoning. However, it matters nothing. It is still not a categorical syllogism. Not every deductive reasoning is a categorical syllogism.
I'm still correct in my assessment, the minor premise is subjective, an assertion.
There is no minor premise. It is not a syllogism.
Object defined to exist does not follow into it existing.
It does if you can prove that it possibly necessarily does.
Seeing as that was the first time I encountered that argument written that way, and I countered it successfully,
You only countered it successfully inside your own head. Strawman doesn't count as counterargument.
looks like I'm smarter than you and the maker of that argument.
You are free to think so. Your arguments show otherwise.
because it doesn't depend on smartness anyway, but reasoning skills
Poor you, then.
Complex things don't require design, necessarily.
And you claim such because..? Wait, I know that one. Because evolution is true and it can create complex beings without the need of a designer. Ah, ok. Circular reasoning.
And a tautology from a loaded word like design/designer.
You don't seem to know what the word tautology means. If it is a tautology, you shouldn't even be disputing it.
You misread it. When the premise and conclusion are the same, it is a tautology.
I didn't misread anything. When the premise and conclusion are the same, the premise is not justifying the conclusion. The premise is the conclusion. And when the premise and conclusion are the same, it is not a tautology (you really do not know what it means, it seems). It is circular reasoning. I believe you meant to say 'a tautological argument' instead of 'a tautology,' which would be correct, then. Yet, your use of the word justify is completely incorrect. Are you a native American speaker?
You assume gravity is true.
And your point is? If gravity is true, then evolution is true too? Or maybe you mean to say that if I can assume gravity to be true, then you are free to assume that evolution is true. Let me tell you that if you can assume evolution to be true, then I can assume that God exists, and we can end the discussion here, with my victory, since we are free to assume to be true whatever we want to, regardless of proof.
I thought it was obvious that he was using a god of the gaps after inventing a need.
Unfortunately, mere thoughts are not stored on the server. You still need to type them if you want to address people's arguments.
And yes, it is a God of the Gaps argument. The Argument from Morality has been dropped from discussion a while ago, and I am not aware that anyone has tried to restate it since.
He wasn't sharing an opinion, he was using the bible to support his argument that we are wrong.
I don't see how what he said applies to the questions at hand. If you do, you're alone on it.
Except that it was not what you said. You said that if you believe something by faith, then evidence does not exist.
Read it as "does not exist for it."
Which is a fact. If you're taking something on faith, then you have no evidence for it. If all you can do is take something on faith, then it has no evidence.
They were twelve years old. They were already prejudiced prior to the experiment. That proves nothing. Childrens in kindengarden are not prejudiced.
You're just asserting again.
You didn't have an argument. Only bare assertions and name calling. Nothing to address. I don't have to address every nonsense you can came up with in your head, specially since they are not backed up by evidence.
My argument was that superstition is caused by eons of evolved bad reasoning skills, primitive minds (because we didn't start with this mind, we have primitive ones millions of years ago), and charlatans. You made no rebuttal.
I know. I am having a hard time addressing your "arguments" in a civil manner. Your poor grasp of Logic is the worst part since I have to demonstrate it to be wrong, instead of simply dismissing your bare assertions as being mere bare assertions.
It took me a while to figure out what bare assertion means to you, but now I understand. A bare assertion to you is a fact that is common knowledge, easy to verify, but that you disagree with.
Fair enough. Provide me archeological evidence for the history of the Odyssey and we stop.
It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.”
Minor:
It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist,
Conclusion:
and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
It does if you can prove that it possibly necessarily does.
Still incorrect, this is why we have scientific methodology, to test claims that may even appear logically sound but are incongruous with reality. For example, we demonstrate through logic that dark matter should, necessarily, exist but because we haven't manufactured any of it, or encountered it, it is still speculative.
And you claim such because..? Wait, I know that one. Because evolution is true and it can create complex beings without the need of a designer. Ah, ok. Circular reasoning.
It's not circular reasoning unless I said evolution is true because [evolution is true] or somesuch. I said that the premise is negated by evolution.
You don't seem to know what the word tautology means. If it is a tautology, you shouldn't even be disputing it.
A tautology is a statement that is true in and of itself but has no utility. Like designed things are designed, or a a made thing has a maker.
I didn't misread anything. When the premise and conclusion are the same, the premise is not justifying the conclusion. The premise is the conclusion. And when the premise and conclusion are the same, it is not a tautology (you really do not know what it means, it seems). It is circular reasoning. I believe you meant to say 'a tautological argument' instead of 'a tautology,' which would be correct, then. Yet, your use of the word justify is completely incorrect. Are you a native American speaker?
Saying:
A made thing has a maker is tautological, using a loaded word to justify a conclusion is tautological reasoning. You're just quibbling over semantics and mis-statements, which you do regularly as a way to distract from the topic.
And your point is? If gravity is true, then evolution is true too? Or maybe you mean to say that if I can assume gravity to be true, then you are free to assume that evolution is true. Let me tell you that if you can assume evolution to be true, then I can assume that God exists, and we can end the discussion here, with my victory, since we are free to assume to be true whatever we want to, regardless of proof.
My point is that except in the world of crackpots and fundamentalists, evolution is an established theory and fact, like gravity, and it doesn't require me to justify it anymore than I should have to justify to you than the earth orbits the sun. If you have trouble with this, read a science book PUBLISHED BY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITIES, NOT CREATIONISTS, and learn biology.
Just because you are suffering from a delusion where the whole scientific world is out to deny creationists their glory, doesn't mean I should have to do your homework for you. The only time I'll bother defending evolution is if it is an evolution debate, or if I'm in a masochistic mood and feel like writing volumes of text to people who won't read it anyway because their mind is closed shut.
I don't see how what he said applies to the questions at hand. If you do, you're alone on it.
He said:
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.
9- You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.
4- You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.
2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian
i climbed everest blindfolded, with a hippo on my back in 30 seconds, and i also blew up the moon, i got looooooaaaaddddddssss of proof, but i don't have the time to write it down.
i climbed everest blindfolded, with a hippo on my back in 30 seconds, and i also blew up the moon, i got looooooaaaaddddddssss of proof, but i don't have the time to write it down.
I believe you, because your autobiography says it is an infallible work and therefore means you MUST have done these things! It's completely logical!
Well, I'm Christian too. And I say there is no proof. Not even the Bible is proof because the Bible was written by man and "inspired" by God. Can we even know if this was true?
i agree. there are plenty of reasons why God exists. Being a baptist i believe in the bible. but for those who dont believe where's your evidence that he's not real?
god and evolution are compatible, don't position them as if their a dichotomy.
The bible does conflict, also the very conceptualization which most people have as god is self-contradictory. God is a meaningless word in general. Some conceptualizations on what god should be conceptualized as makes sense.
1. God is a being that is greater than what we believe therefore we can not define that he exists with only our knowledge. But we can get close to what we can call 'proove' his existence.
2.
The Noah's Ark, exact dimensions as the bible stated
Wall of Jericho, Mechanical Resonance -> caused the back wall to slide down and fall on top of the front wall
The splitting of the red sea was caused when a wind faster than 63km/h blew for a certain length of time around the same area
3. The contradictions that are stated in here are, unfortunately, caused due to misinterpretations and incorrect translations. For example the last words of Jesus all mean the same thing: The will of the God is done and Jesus will give up his soul to complete the work of salvation
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you but I feel you are being fairly vague in many of your statements.
Are you saying the lack of any evidence for God is only because he is too great for us to perceive?
Or are you saying that his existence is independent of belief? If so, that is true of God, and also everything else. It also does not mean that he does exist.
The Noah's Ark, exact dimensions as the bible stated
To my knowledge, no evidence of Noah's Ark has ever been discovered.
Wall of Jericho, Mechanical Resonance -> caused the back wall to slide down and fall on top of the front wall
Is this an explanation of something that could have caused the wall of Jericho to fall if the Bible story were true? Or is this the result of an modern experiment designed to test the possibility of such a parable? Also, can you explain how mechanical resonance can cause a back wall slide down and fall on top of a front wall?
The splitting of the red sea was caused when a wind faster than 63km/h blew for a certain length of time around the same area
Are you saying such a phenomenon as the splitting of the Red Sea has been observed again? If so, don't you think this is more likely to be a work of nature than God?
If you are simply stating what people have decided would need to happen in order to split the Red Sea, this is not evidence either. It is simply an explanation of what would need to happen to split the Red Sea, not evidence that happened, by God's hand or not.
So...did you even read your own source? The blog author tells the story and then does an excellent job of debunking the fabrication and hunting down its origin, which makes my job a lot easier.
He also laments the tendencies of his fellow Christians to believe even the stupidest anecdotes that appear to support their faith. You should read the rest of the blog and perhaps seriously contemplate his points; taking his advice would make Christians, as a whole, a far more credible group than they currently are.
The contradictions that are stated in here are, unfortunately, caused due to misinterpretations and incorrect translations. For example the last words of Jesus all mean the same thing: The will of the God is done and Jesus will give up his soul to complete the work of salvation
Really? A book that was written over the course of centuries, by a multitude of authors, has no chance of bearing a few genuine discrepancies?
If you can confidently say that they are all the result of mere mistranslations, then surely you should be able to tell me what the correct original verses are for each example.
This is a pretty biased viewpoint, what do i mean by that?
Look, in the olden days, the Greeks used to say: "oh God's up there on that giant mountain that's covered by clouds". Then when someone got to the top and didn't find a golden palace they said "oh just kidding"
Now Christianity started by saying "look God's just way up in the sky, in a different realm," When scientists began discovering that the world isn't the center of the universe the church didn't like that at all.
Finally, we reach space and discover that there is an infinite amount of space all around us, and God doesn't seem to be anywhere there, but people who believe in God just modify their position once again: "He's in a different dimension"
Let's look at the argument history now side by side
Non-Believers Believers
Olden Days: Doesn't Exist On the mountain
A.D Doesn't Exist In Space!
Space-Age Doesn't Exist IN ANOTHER DIMENSION!!
Clearly its only logical that the side that doesn't continue to modify its argument when proved wrong is the right one.
And frankly, asking us to prove he doesn't exist is ridiculous. People prove he doesn't exist for millennia, and each time that they do so, the believers change their conditions for God and say "ok NOW prove he doesn't exist"
when will you be satisfied?
And for "Christ's sake" You can't use the BIBLE to cite your argument. It'd be like someone using a book written millennia ago about some magical being (with no evidence except their own experiences) to cite an argument PROVING that such a magical being exists.... OH WAIT
There is no evidence as to why something doesn't exist. Why don't you prove there is no invisible flying spaghetti monster? It is up to the supporter of something preposterous to come up with the evidence, not the one who doesn't believe it. If you were trying to get an invention patented, would you come up with evidence as to why your product is great, or would you do the lazy and stupid thing and force the patent officer to provide reasons as to why your invention SHOULDN'T be patented? One of the reasons he would give is that you haven't told him why your product is great.
What you do NOT understand is the fact that if you claim something to be true, the burden of proof is on YOU!
For instance:
If I say that King Kong was roaming around my house at midnight, I need to provide proportional evidence to support that claim (Photography, etc.) because that happening is most unlikely.
Why doesn't anybody on Create Debate believe in God?! There is the pocketwatch theory, Creation, millions of people who have a relationship with him who aren't hallucinating! How else was the world made?
Why doesn't anybody on Create Debate believe in God?! There is the pocketwatch theory, Creation, millions of people who have a relationship with him who aren't hallucinating! How else was the world made?
You mean watchmaker proof? That's been debunked for over a century. Things that are complex, and appear designed, do not in fact need a designer if they are alive. Creationism is a myth. And millions of people are deluded. Simple really.
"Creationism is a myth. And millions of people are deluded. Simple really."
-Aveskde
Exactly. People see that billions of others believe and think, "If they all think He exists, then He must exist. They can't all be wrong." They are now a part of the masses who 'must' have some proof that God exists. The delusion that is God still exists simply because:
a) The way of proving wrong claims that have no basis in fact (dismissing them) does not work with God, because theists will argue that "God is all powerful. You can't know He is there unless He wants you to." despite that this is not an argument at all.
b)So many people believe and so few are able to make an educated decision that religion will not fade away any time in the near future. If everyone was well educated, we would be atheists. Unfortunately, we are not.
you teach a child to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster he will believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Simple as that. You teach a person from day of birth to moment of death they will believe in what ever you tell them, including God. Take a person who is neutral on the subject that is non biased and make him chose, he will most likely chose that God doesn't exist.
Oh, really? That's novel. Who debunked it and didn't tell me?
David Hume was the earliest to contest it, however the chief way it has been debunked is through evolution by natural selection.
Really? Tell me of one.
I believe I just implied the answer: life. However crystals are another good example.
I think the same thing about evolution!
I don't really concern myself with opinions, you can also think that the earth is stationary and that heliocentricists are deluded and it wouldn't matter because both evolution and heliocentricism are established facts and theories.
And Hume's arguments were countered and debunked as soon as they saw the light of the day, as they were fallacious in nature.
the chief way it has been debunked is through evolution by natural selection.
No, it hasn't, sorry. Natural Selection has failed to prove to be able to account for all the variety that exists, and fails to explain many aspects of life. If anything, Evo-devo is now showing that natural selection alone is actually unfit to explain it. Only those that worship natural selection as their own version of the God of the Gaps argument believe that natural selection alone can account for everything alive today. Science has shown otherwise.
However crystals are another good example.
Really? Care to explain?
I don't really concern myself with opinions,
But you certainly like to hear the sound of your own voice, figuratively speaking, by stating your own opinions ("Creationism is a myth. And millions of people are deluded.").
because both evolution and heliocentricism are established facts and theories.
Should I remind you that so were flat earth and geocentrism, one day?
No, it hasn't, sorry. Natural Selection has failed to prove to be able to account for all the variety that exists, and fails to explain many aspects of life. If anything, Evo-devo is now showing that natural selection alone is actually unfit to explain it. Only those that worship natural selection as their own version of the God of the Gaps argument believe that natural selection alone can account for everything alive today. Science has shown otherwise.
I'm just getting white noise from your argument indicative of denialism.
Really? Care to explain?
Crystals are highly ordered, complex structures that form naturally.
But you certainly like to hear the sound of your own voice, figuratively speaking, by stating your own opinions ("Creationism is a myth. And millions of people are deluded.").
Both of these statements are facts.
Should I remind you that so were flat earth and geocentrism, one day?
You mean back in the days before science had a common practice of challenging common knowledge and was restrained by church dogma?
I'm just getting white noise from your argument indicative of denialism.
I am sure that the noise is coming from your own mouth.
Crystals are highly ordered, complex structures that form naturally.
Interesting. Do they form through means of evolution?
Both of these statements are facts.
I love your comments. They always make me smile. You have now burden of proof for both of those statements. I hope you can fulfill it.
You mean back in the days before science had a common practice of challenging common knowledge and was restrained by church dogma?
No. Before it happened. Before the Church had any say on this matter. Science is not really a product of modern times, you know?
Can you handle the fact that one day scientists claimed that earth was flat and the earth was the center of the Universe, and that those were proven facts? You can't blame Catholic Church for the blunders of the Greek and Egyptian scientists, you know? The Church didn't even exist back then.
Again, should I remind you that flat earth and geocentrism were considered facts by scientists the same way that evolution is considered a fact today?
Can you handle the fact that one day scientists claimed that earth was flat and the earth was the center of the Universe, and that those were proven facts? You can't blame Catholic Church for the blunders of the Greek and Egyptian scientists, you know? The Church didn't even exist back then.
Except they weren't proven facts, they were models which best explained what could be seen thousands of years ago, and further the methodology of that time was not scientific as it lacked the methodology which made a falsifiable hypothesis and tested it.
Again, should I remind you that flat earth and geocentrism were considered facts by scientists the same way that evolution is considered a fact today?
They weren't proper scientists, they were at best professional philosophers and thinkers. However that doesn't support your central argument anyway, because besides the much higher standards for evidence and error checking, evolution is an observed, modeled, and well-understood phenomenon. You may as well be asking "Again, should I remind you that flat earth and geocentrism were considered facts by scientists the same way that gravity is considered a fact today?"
However, go back to your denialism, nothing will permit you to accept your error.
There is an entire study on how the world was made, and the information is available to you if you take the time to look. Also, define "hallucinating". Hallucinating is certainly not when someone doesn't have enough evidence to believe in something crazy.
are you the king of atheism you've disagreed with nearly everyone on this side of the debate
Unreasonable arguments deserve criticism. Not one argument for god is reasonable, and most are quite laughable, deserving harsh ridicule for the baseless assertions they make.
Quite a bold argument for someone who hasn't shown any reasonable argument as well, as has mostly discussed semantics, and engaged in denialism so far. Can you back up your claim? I hope you can, I surely hope so. Otherwise, it will be your statements that will be laughable, after all, that would make it nothing more than baseless assertions.
Quite a bold argument for someone who hasn't shown any reasonable argument as well, as has mostly discussed semantics, and engaged in denialism so far. Can you back up your claim? I hope you can, I surely hope so. Otherwise, it will be your statements that will be laughable, after all, that would make it nothing more than baseless assertions.
Ah so you've proven god and won that Nobel prize, unified humanity under one true religion with a god that can be known, etc.?
If not, I can't be called a denialist. Denial requires an established thing to deny. God isn't established, only belief in god is.
Also it is isn't semantics when the people you argue about don't know how to use the words and concepts. You'll note how scientifically illiterate the "god side" is.
I find it funny, actually, because a cursory look at the internet shows those aren't strawmen.
Really? Because I am sure that the internet is full of websites known for sound reasoning and critical thinking skills (e.g 4chan), and a cursory look at the internet is sure to bring forth the best ones.
Or not. I am not sure. I usually think by myself. I do not let Google do the thinking for me.
Because there isn't a shred of proof for god that stands up to scrutiny, so I don't have to live in constant denial of evidence, I can just sit here waiting for theists to make ONE argument that doesn't collapse in on itself.
Really? Because I am sure that the internet is full of websites known for sound reasoning and critical thinking skills (e.g 4chan), and a cursory look at the internet is sure to bring forth the best ones.
Or not. I am not sure. I usually think by myself. I do not let Google do the thinking for me.
Did you read the "yes" section on this site's debate? Now compare it to that list. Believers argue like in that list all the time.
That is the laziest argument I have ever heard. If that is what you truly think the mindset of an Atheist is, then you are an idiot of the highest regard.
By my faith God exist. By hearing you will gain faith through the Gospel of Christ.
Believing God exist is just like describing a rainbow to the blind man. Supposed I am blind and you are a good friend of mind telling me how beautiful rainbow is. with a glowing 7 colors; red, orange, yellow, green, violet, indigou and blue.
Surely what you say is truth because you saw it. but i believed what you saw. No one does can proved GOD exist, unless you will experience HIM. For i have feel and experience HIS power changing my life.
Does a thought exist if you have one? Even if God is only a thought, or a wish that we want to be true to give us a sense of importance or that there is life after death, that is a thought and if a thought exists does that mean that there is a God?
As far as God making haven and earth...well...no one I know has ever seen heaven or come back to tell me that there is a heaven.
A thought exists as a mental content. It is the early stage in the process of forming concepts. If a thought or concept of an individual can be validated and verified by reason and logic to what it represents in reality, then it is given cognitive legitimacy. If a thought or concept is unable to fulfill these requirements, then it can only remain a notion, illegitimate concept or contradiction.
Our world is taking God out of everything and you guys expect him to make a miracle to make everything better?! If you atheists would take the time to read the bible for ONE day then you will find plenty of proof that God exists and proof that it was not written by some crack head. You atheists don't believe in God because you would rather take the easy route and do everything to please yourselves. Just give him a chance. One day!
no why is it a he and not a she. Have anny of us seen him. If god love's us why did he let us have 2 world wars and contless other was and let us kill each other for oil and hate each other just because they dont belive in your religon. And they say death to america because you invade there contry and say that ther religon is not right. And if i said that a fish can talk and says that you will die if you dont say fish are cool would you belive that so god is not true and it was all made up
first let me explain... the pain and suffering is not caused by God, it is the doing of the Satan and his cronies. The reason why God didn't stop this is because he is the Lord of creator and preserver, keeper of peace; therefore if he did destroy, he will be defying his own nature. You must understand that the religion of God has been disputed world-wide through out the history of men. This is because Humans tend to misuse and abuse the title of God for their own avarice. And we must acknowledge that these men had died and got what they deserved, unless they've repented what they've done in the end. God's will is above all of our intentions, though and therefore it is not right for you to say that God doesn't exist.
I know that God is real that is all I am going to say Jesus said in the Bible that people in the world will hate you and persecute you for my name sake. I am done with this debate. Moving along.
I know that God is real that is all I am going to say Jesus said in the Bible that people in the world will hate you and persecute you for my name sake. I am done with this debate. Moving along.
You're not persecuted, but entering a debate with piousness and then delivering sophistry and an "I'm right kthxbai" will get you hate.
Agreed. He is pretty much the example of all that is wrong in religion. However, being stupid doesn't make his statement incorrect. Christians were, and are, in fact, persecuted in many places around the world. Doesn't really add anything to the question at hand, though.
Why are we here? What is our Purpose? What is the meaning of life? These questions have been asked for as long as human history. The answer can be found through the answers of a series of other questions. The first question being: why are we seeking to know?
Every creature on the earth is content. Every creature, but humans. We are endlessly searching and inquiring into everything we can and cannont see. The human race as a whole and every individual is uncontent, because man is searching for somehting that is not of this world.
Athiests, Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and Protestants all have one thing in common and that is that they are all searching for something greater than themselves. Whether through science or religion, humans seem to have part of themselves that yearn for something more than what seems.
What is this component that makes up the human and sets them aside from the rest of creation? It is not the mind or the ability to reason. Though these things help us to better grasp and come to the conclusion of what we are searching for, they are not what make us desire for it. A man of little common sense and the wit of a five year old can have this eagerness to know just as great as or greater than anyone. So too can the great minds of today just as easily ignore it.
This thing is not instinctual either. The anilmal is ruled by instinct and can little decide what it does. The human is not, by any means, controlled by instict. Man has a will of his own.
This wills, this abiltiy to decide is not the component, but is a direct consequence of it. There have been many names given to it, but the most common today is the word soul. We are separated from all of creation because of our soul. We posses something in us not of this world. The soul cannont be calculated into an elemental composition because it is not material. If not material than what? The soul is spiritual.
If we are on earth and have an earthly body where did we receive this soul? This question implies that there is somebeing greater than this world. A being that gave us a soul. Our soul knows this and is eager to be with this Creator. Who is this Creator?
This Creator must be greater than us. The pot is never greater than the potter. So we come to a god and man. Creator and creature.
If there is one god why can’t there be many? This is not possible because of the structure, rules, and order of this world. There is only one way of things (which we would not have if there was not one God) in this world. Everything conforms to one certain thinking pattern. This conformity can be seen in the animal kingdom, laws of physics, and elemental matter. All these things have a constant way they are supposed to work.
Of course one will always ask “Those things are all nice, but they are all, of this world. What about that soul?” Fortuanately, for all monotheistic believers, this order of things can also be found on a spiritual level. Easiest example being the moral standard of things.
If a man is to say to another that he should not be doing something there has to be a standard moral system they are both complying to. Where did this standard come from? Why does every human civilization seem to know this basic standard of morals?
If a certain person or group of persons made up the standard and just thought it ought to be that way than it would hardly matter to comply with the standard. The thing is that it is a standard and isn’t made by man. If not one man or a group of men made it, than whom? The answer of course being that it was made by one God.
This wills, this abiltiy to decide is not the component, but is a direct consequence of it. There have been many names given to it, but the most common today is the word soul. We are separated from all of creation because of our soul. We posses something in us not of this world. The soul cannont be calculated into an elemental composition because it is not material. If not material than what? The soul is spiritual.
If we are on earth and have an earthly body where did we receive this soul? This question implies that there is somebeing greater than this world. A being that gave us a soul. Our soul knows this and is eager to be with this Creator. Who is this Creator?
This Creator must be greater than us. The pot is never greater than the potter. So we come to a god and man. Creator and creature.
You're just asserting without evidence. If we have a soul, provide pictures, instrument readings, etc. Don't just assert that something exists and continue onwards.
If a man is to say to another that he should not be doing something there has to be a standard moral system they are both complying to. Where did this standard come from? Why does every human civilization seem to know this basic standard of morals?
Evolution shapes morality, that's also why it isn't so universal.
I don't think you understand. You are just asserting that there is no soul. You have absolutely no evidence that there isn't. You are asking Me to do Your homework and prove to You that there is not a such thing as a soul.
Through a line of reasoning i came to the conclusion that there is a soul and that there is a God.
You tell me i need evidence such as pictures, instrument reading, etc., but this is not the only way you can have evidence that something exists. How many pictures have you seen of the wind? Yet through basic reasoning we can conclude that there is a such thing as wind. We know it exist because of the cause and effect it has on this world.
Evolution does not shape morality. If this was so than for each part of the earth that is extremely different than the other we would have extremely different moral systems. We do not have extremely different moral system. Everywhere on earth and all time periods the same basic moral system has prevailed. It has always been wrong to kill, cheat, lie, steal, etc. This can be seen from the most ancient civilizations.
And if there ever was a civilization (such as the mians) that did not follow the basic morals, there was always another group of people that either corrected them or took controll over them.
I don't think you understand. You are just asserting that there is no soul. You have absolutely no evidence that there isn't. You are asking Me to do Your homework and prove to You that there is not a such thing as a soul.
I don't have to prove anything. I am not making positive claims. You assert that there is a god and that there are souls. You made positive claims, and must therefore prove them. This is burden of proof.
Through a line of reasoning i came to the conclusion that there is a soul and that there is a God.
Which is no doubt fallacious as god is defined to be unable to be evidenced or proven.
You tell me i need evidence such as pictures, instrument reading, etc., but this is not the only way you can have evidence that something exists. How many pictures have you seen of the wind? Yet through basic reasoning we can conclude that there is a such thing as wind. We know it exist because of the cause and effect it has on this world.
The concept of god has no perceivable effect on the world. There is no evidence backing the assertion. The concept of a soul is superfluous as various fields that study the brain have deduced natural explanations for behaviours, and drugs are able to change personality.
Evolution does not shape morality. If this was so than for each part of the earth that is extremely different than the other we would have extremely different moral systems. We do not have extremely different moral system. Everywhere on earth and all time periods the same basic moral system has prevailed. It has always been wrong to kill, cheat, lie, steal, etc. This can be seen from the most ancient civilizations.
Try researching your claims. Also, even if evolution were inept at this task, it is not evidence for a god or souls. Positive evidence doesn't work that way unless we have a clear dichotomy, which we do not.
And if there ever was a civilization (such as the mians) that did not follow the basic morals, there was always another group of people that either corrected them or took controll over them.
If you study world cultures you find that societies have very different attitudes on all sorts of moral judgments. For example, South American cultures tend to be conservative towards gender roles and sexuality, while in the Nordic countries of Europe it is extremely liberal. On matters of violence and retribution the middle eastern countries foster extremely aggressive attitudes, hence honour killings and suicide bombings. On matters of stealing, each region has differing definitions (Can intellectual property be stolen? Is there a minimum value before the law enters in? What punishments are administered?). On issues of lying, cheating, and killing no two people can seem to agree, for example whether you ought to lie for a good cause, or white lie, whether you can kill in self defense or at war, and cheating has as many supporters as detractors it would seem.
People who do not think there is a God are asking people who do to prove that there is, But I say that the evidence that God exist is overwhelming. Prove to me that God DOESN'T exist.
People who do not think there is a God are asking people who do to prove that there is, But I say that the evidence that God exist is overwhelming. Prove to me that God DOESN'T exist.
We're not here to do your homework. I say there's overwhelming evidence that gravity is a conspiracy, prove me wrong, but debate doesn't work this way.
I think that people who are praying at the moment might as well pray to a carten of milk. Think about it, saying your prayers at night or asking god for something will not cause that thing to happen. example: you wish to win the lottery. God is not a force that will make this happen. Religion seems to make worshipping God helpful and a "prayer being answered" was the will of god, whereas if you ask the carten of milk to give you the winning ticket would be put down to good luck.
I think that people who are praying at the moment might as well pray to a carten of milk
I think that you have no right to say that to people. I just showed this argument to my mates and we are offended beyond belief.
Think about it, saying your prayers at night or asking god for something will not cause that thing to happen. example: you wish to win the lottery. God is not a force that will make this happen
No one said that would happen. If God exists (which he does) then everything has a perpose. For example: Someone died in hospital and a woman held his toes and cried out "GOD HEAL THIS MAN" - prayer. The heart beat detector thingy started bleeping again. Not only proof of God, but proof that prayer works.
Ok, ok. The milk carten was a bad example. I thought of it because I was drinking a glass right there and then. How do we explain things that happen in other religions and the different Gods that are out there. I am familiar with three different religious people at the moment as I myself go to church, but the confusing thing is which God is real or which God grants miracles. I'm sorry if I offended people out there with my previous comment, but I've researched into this a lot and it shows that the likelihood of a God is slim.
If time travel were possible or I actually met a God like figure, I would happily swallow humble pie.
This argument against the stupidity of prayer is taken from an argument that was saying people who pray to God think their prayers are being answered. They 1) have their prayer granted. 2) have their prayer denied. Or 3) Need to keep praying. Now if i were to switch my prayer from God to the milk carten all three things can still happen. The difference being that it isn't accredited to God. It is accredited to the milk carten and in consequence coincidence.
The problem is that this can be applied to anything. I normally use UPS to deliver my mail. UPS Either Delivers my mail, cannot deliver my mail, or I need to continue to wait.
If i were to switch my mailing method to a milk carten, Either my mail cannot be delivered, I need to wait longer, or the milk carten by some random chance gets my mail delivered.
So the argument using the milk carten does not provide an argument against the existance of God, but simply shows that people are able to give credit where it isn't due.
The problem is that this can be applied to anything. I normally use UPS to deliver my mail. UPS Either Delivers my mail, cannot deliver my mail, or I need to continue to wait.
Indeed it can. If the object you replace god with has a statistically significantly higher rate of success than the milk carton then it works. If the success rate of the milk carton and whatever you are comparing with is the same, then it's a placebo.
This is the point too, praying to a milk carton or god has the same success rate, implying that prayer does not work.
If i were to switch my mailing method to a milk carten, Either my mail cannot be delivered, I need to wait longer, or the milk carten by some random chance gets my mail delivered.
In your example the success rate of the milk carton delivering mail is zero, the UPS method is much greater than zero. Therefore using UPS isn't a placebo.
I see, I understand. The problem is that praying to God isn't the illusion. Believing that praying to God and a milk carton are the same thing is an illusion. The milk carton argument works because we cannot see the forces at work and i would suppose this is just another factor that helps prove your case, but whether we can see something or not should never be a factor and deciding whether somthing exists.
I don't believe that God and a milk carten have the same rate of success. How often has someone prayed to a milk carton and a miracle happened? This is of course if you allow for room for miracles, but even if you don't.
A lot of prayers have been answered and acredit to pray to God, that haven't had any miraculous or incredible factor to it.
There has never been any incident of prayers being answered by milk cartons.
The milk carton has a significantly loser sucess rate than God. By the way the argument is stated people assume that God and the milk carton have the same success rate, but this has never been proven nor tested. Almost no one if anyone at all has ever prayed to a milk carton and had sucess. Even if they had God's sucess rate is still high and stronger with a better track record, than the milk carton.
Unless two people were to pray for two identical things, both praying to either the milk carton or God, over a period of time, I don't think this argument can be valid.
I see, I understand. The problem is that praying to God isn't the illusion. Believing that praying to God and a milk carton are the same thing is an illusion. The milk carton argument works because we cannot see the forces at work and i would suppose this is just another factor that helps prove your case, but whether we can see something or not should never be a factor and deciding whether somthing exists.
It's a comparative approach to determining the efficacy of prayer. It isn't anything more. We know that a milk carton doesn't answer prayers, so it is the control. If we pray to X and it has the same success rate as the control, then it doesn't answer prayers either.
I don't believe that God and a milk carten have the same rate of success. How often has someone prayed to a milk carton and a miracle happened? This is of course if you allow for room for miracles, but even if you don't.
You're using confirmation bias. Try praying to both, for the same things that can be easily measured, for a month. Record each prayer and effect. You praying to god will be about the same results-wise as the milk container.
A lot of prayers have been answered and acredit to pray to God, that haven't had any miraculous or incredible factor to it.
There has never been any incident of prayers being answered by milk cartons.
This is an example of confirmation bias. Things which do nothing can have success out of pure chance, and when we remember these successes but neglect to account for the failures we get a bias. This is related to the placebo. Sugar pills can have a marked effect on some conditions because the person believes it is a real drug. The point of praying to a milk container and god is to determine the success rate of the control (the milk container, which cannot answer prayers and so any success is purely random) to the proposed god. If the results are within the same area, then we know that "god" doesn't answer prayers and the success is purely random.
The milk carton has a significantly loser sucess rate than God. By the way the argument is stated people assume that God and the milk carton have the same success rate, but this has never been proven nor tested. Almost no one if anyone at all has ever prayed to a milk carton and had sucess. Even if they had God's sucess rate is still high and stronger with a better track record, than the milk carton.
People pray to idols with apparent success all the time. Lucky shoes, socks, a pendant, all are attributed to success. Don't assert that god is more successful than a jug of milk, do it yourself and record the results. I may know the outcome of it, but this is something you must see yourself to believe.
Of course you have to have a creator behind a creation. You cant have nothing create something. Doesnt make any sence. I mean everything we know beggins with something out of our control, such as our birth for christ sake.
In my personal view, yes. But I don't believe in God as in a "merciful" deity, who we all must try to please otherwise we'll be damned to hell. I believe that's about as real as Zeus.
I believe that God exist's as the universe - that God is "the circle of life", what causes birth and death, and nature, and that we are all, literally, part of God.
Yes of course God exists. Some people say that if god exists, how come he allows bad things. we have brought this on ourselves. if we could all live in harmony, none of this would ever happen. I f pandora, and i am not dissing women, hadn't been so curious(ruled by her womanly instincts) we would be perfect and nothing could go wrong. also eve. if we didnt eat the one apple, we would not have pain and suffering
I don't think that human logic can prove whether or not there is a God. For example: If there is a God, and Christianity (the most believed religion in which there is a God) is true, than all of the doubters will go to Hell. If there isn't a God, then everyone dies and there is nothing better than this. People who believed there was a God will be faced with the same circumstances as the people who were right. Why would anyone take this chance in believing there is no God?!
The christian religion or at least the catholic religion which was the first and only christian religion founded by Jesus, does not believe that doubters will necesarily go to hell.
Catholics believe the God is an understanding God and will know each individuals given circumstance. This means that if the individual didn't have the proper environment to fully understand and come to reason on God's Existence, but was still a good person, and followed his teachings(this can be done without knowing what they are just as a child mimicks it's parents without know the actual word or it's meaning.) that person has a very good chance of going to heaven.
This doesn't now mean however that a person that openly disputes God just because he does not want to live that kind of lifestyle will have the same out come.
What are you talking about???!!!! Catholicism was not founded by Jesus! Do your research before you say something like that! Catholicism was not founded until about 107 AD! The very first Christians were simply Jews who studied the prophecy of the Old Testament and when Jesus died, they became Christians; there were no denominations, these Christians were just continuing the Jewish faith. And I am also not so sure about your claims on the Catholic faith. God chooses people to believe in him, and if you are not chosen, although you have free will, it is still predetermined that you will go to Hell.
No one is predestined to go anywhere but heaven, whether we follow this destiny depends on us. Maybe you should do some researchs because anyone who followed Jesus after he was crucified was no longer considered part of the Jewish community. The followeres of Jesus were outcasts and perscuted by leading Jewish figures. A lot of them weren't even Jews, but uncircumcised gentiles.
Whether Catholicism had a name or not untill 107 AD has hardly anything at all to do with the fact that Jesus founded it.
The word catholicism originates from from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized
into Catholicus.
The meaning of the word is 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting
the entire world and all peoples therein'. It means, all encompassing,
comprehensibly broad, general, and containing all that is necessary.
Catholic means all people in all places, having all that is
necessary, and for all time.
It is also biblical (and we all know the new testament in the bible is considered a compliation of all of Jesus teachings.) It is in Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples
of all nations...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;
And behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of
the world."
That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.
And before you argue that he did not say the exact word catholic keep this in mind: Language is a tool to convey meaning and understanding. Jesus didn't have to say the exact word "catholic" to say catholic. .
Jesus founded christianity which was later given the name Catholicism. No where from Jesus' life time to 107 AD when it was a more organized church with a name did it change. Nor were there any other denominations that broke off from the catholic church untill around the 16th century.
god isn't in the mind... but god is the metaphysical thing inside us the strength is god and the weakness is human.. if we questioned where we get our mental strength.. we don't get the answer and we're not creating it because it's there,, we just gotta name it... so name it god, allah, jesus, whatever... but the fact that it's there is inevitable.
Conclusion - yes he does. He is the mighty and powerful Lord who created everything. There are, however, real scientific evidences that lead up to the fact that God is real. You may argue that he is fake, if he is real why did he put evil sides in this world, in the Bible, God allowed demons to roam around and he made HELL for them. Needless to say, demons are scared of him.
I believe that what we believe IS the most important thing.
God is metaphysical, beyond the human realm of thought and imagination, by definition.
For the cynics, this means that whether He exists or not, evidence proving either will be extremely improbable.
"What if you're wrong?" is a common retort, focusing on time wasted believing in a personal God, and consequences. It is a valid point. But, from the other side, WHAT IF I'M RIGHT? What if there IS a heaven, and there IS a hell?
Personally, I hope and believe that my life on earth consists of more than an organic accident, and that when our organs start to fail, we have more to look forward to other than decomposition and the fading out of history.
Belief in this has more to offer us.
And what if it is nothing, a shared, extremely large LIE?
Then it is beneficial; belief in God, true belief, is better than looking for the "purpose in life"
As I stated, "evidence" this and "logic" that will NOT work in this debate as well as compared to a debate about the growth rate of potatoes.
The question, the one that will affect your life, is this, and you ARE free to make any choice you want:
But just TRY and imagine (from Mario's perspective) that if he took a step TOWARDS the viewer, things would be different? He would be outside of the plane, and the inhabitants of the original dimension would have extreme difficulty understanding what the heck just happened.
On the same thought, who are we to judge and make rationalizations about an omnipresent, omniscient God? We have difficult imagining the fourth dimension in mathematical terms, plain numbers and such. I say that all our arguments need a serious looking at; we say something contradicts and is inconsistent. Add another perspective, from a more sophisticated point of view. The argument crumbles, yet it isn't understood, from the smaller perspective.
The question concerning the existence of God depends on the five most consequential questions in life.
1. Where did we come from?
2. Who are we?
3. Why are we here?
4. How should we live?
5. Where are we going?
One thing that must be agreed upon is that there are intellectual, emotional and volitional obstacles to both sides of the debate. A person must be willing to make a thorough investigation of the evidence with an open mind.
Many suggest that only science delivers truth and deals in matters of fact while religion stays in the realm of faith. No matter your position on the existence of God, it’s virtually impossible to know everything about a particular topic, and it’s certainly impossible when that topic is an infinite God. So there has to come a point where you realize you have enough information to come to a conclusion, even if unanswered questions remain.
Because we are limited human beings with limited knowledge, faith DOES have a role in this debate. The less evidence you have for your position, the more faith you need to believe it (and vice versa). Faith covers a gap in knowledge.
However, it must be acknowledged that evidence alone cannot convince some people. We humans have a tendency to try to adjust the truth to fit our desires rather than adjusting our desires to fit the truth.
With this said, IS THE TRUTH REALLY KNOWABLE? I say it is. Contrary beliefs are possible, but contrary truths are not. We can believe everything is true, but we cannot make everything true.
God does exist based on the following: the beginning (yes it had a beginning) of the universe; the design of the universe; the design of life; and moral law.
well for all those who said god dosent exist because we dont have an evidence, i have a question, do any one of u have a brain, i dont think so, there is no evidence that any of you have a brain so arguing with you is useless.
Things like this are far too complicated for the human mind to understand.
Ok, lets say God exists. If he does, how was he created? Is it really possbile for something as powerful as God to have existed for all these years? Would someone as forgiving as God actually send someone to "Hell", a place of torture?
Now lets say God doesn't exist: Evolution. A theory of how man was created. But remember, that it is, and only, a theory, so you can't really say that it created man (on Earth that is). The Universe is said to be expanding. Therefore, the Universe is too big for us to imagine. There are probably plenty of planets out there like Earth, maybe evolution created them.
We cannot rely on the knowledge we have now, but maybe someday we will have enough to finally answer the big question.
Are most of you freken blind god does exist reasons why:
1:nothing appears by itself what you thoughht universe apperared by itself and said poof hello im the universe.
2:(This is a true story) one day i prayed that my grandmother would feel better to go on the trip with my family and guess what she felt so much better in fact she told she felt so much better than before she got sick and if you dont belive me I honestly dont care!
3.finall reason look i know alot of you are saying if there is a god howcome he doesnt show himself or how come he doesnt do something about everything thats going on because first off god chooses a time line and chooses the day when you die for a special reason, 2nd he doesnt all the time save people because its probrably because you havent prayed or he chose the day you die.
Thats why you should believe in god then one day when the time comes if youve been good and you believe jesus christ as your lord and savior and you are sorry for your sins you will go to heaven where anything is possible seriously and if you dont belive me still I honestly dont care.
Are most of you freken blind god does exist reasons why:
1:nothing appears by itself what you thoughht universe apperared by itself and said poof hello im the universe.
2:(This is a true story) one day i prayed that my grandmother would feel better to go on the trip with my family and guess what she felt so much better in fact she told she felt so much better than before she got sick and if you dont belive me I honestly dont care!
3.finall reason look i know alot of you are saying if there is a god howcome he doesnt show himself or how come he doesnt do something about everything thats going on because first off god chooses a time line and chooses the day when you die for a special reason, 2nd he doesnt all the time save people because its probrably because you havent prayed or he chose the day you die.
Thats why you should believe in god then one day when the time comes if youve been good and you believe jesus christ as your lord and savior and you are sorry for your sins you will go to heaven where anything is possible seriously and if you dont belive me still I honestly dont care.
I thought to myself, "Is this guy for real? A troll maybe? Or just not very smart."
Then I read:
"My names Grayson im 13 and I hate SONIC!!!!!!!!!!! and I like mario!! Im such a Mario geek YEAH!!!!!!!!!!"
Thirteen years old, that explains everything. You should stick to topics about Mario and Sonic. Philosophy requires a more adult mind. This isn't an insult, but a fact, as a child's mind is not very effective at handling the abstract.
Are most of you freken blind god does exist reasons why:
1:nothing appears by itself what you thoughht universe apperared by itself and said poof hello im the universe.
Just because you don't know how something got here doesn't mean God put it here by magic.
2:(This is a true story) one day i prayed that my grandmother would feel better to go on the trip with my family and guess what she felt so much better in fact she told she felt so much better than before she got sick and if you dont belive me I honestly dont care!
(This is a true story, too.) One day I prayed that it would stop raining so my grade school field trip to the zoo wouldn't be canceled, and guess what? It didn't. In fact, it kept raining all day, and the next day, and the day after that, and I didn't get to go to the zoo and if you don't believe me I honestly don't care.
The occurrence of mundane events is proof of nothing because they may as well have been about to happen anyway. When people get sick, usually they get better. Thank your grandmother's immune system.
3.finall reason look i know alot of you are saying if there is a god howcome he doesnt show himself or how come he doesnt do something about everything thats going on because first off god chooses a time line and chooses the day when you die for a special reason, 2nd he doesnt all the time save people because its probrably because you havent prayed or he chose the day you die.
You didn't even answer the question you raised, just asserted with no evidence that God has chosen a day for all of us to die. What does that have to do with why he doesn't show himself to humans?
if you dont belive me still I honestly dont care.
That's good, because I don't think you changed anyone's mind.
I absolutely believe in God. But I suppose I aught to provide a little more stronger reasoning than simply "the book says He exists" or "people have always believed in a divine being of some sort." I believe because I find that it makes sense with me. Many atheists have stated that religion is something that "common" people used to explain things they did not understand. I firmly believe that religion has a place in any society and that religion and science can be reconciled by a little open mindedness on both parts. There are far too many people on both sides of the argument that believe that the other side is absolutely wrong and must be redeemed. But I think that people have a right to believe in what they will, and not be condemned by any mortal for it.
Also we should accept that someone else believes something differently, and have a inviolable right to do so.
In my oppion god does exist ,other Y's how would the world and whole human race been created . All around the world most peolpe worship a god or many gods. There is evidence that tells you that god created the world such in Quraans and bibles.
Guys, how do you explain people speaking in tounges??? What is teh world comign too if there is no trust for those who have 'spiritual gifts' or 'visions'. We believe stuff we have no proof for. We take chemotherapy treeatment when there is almost no chance it will help, only put us in pain? Surely we should trust spiritual gifts and visions if we trust chemotherapy.
Different religion have different thought of god. For me, I believe in my god. It not must have any scientific proof that whether it is real anot but My god proof to me his real. Peace out
If I were to stumble upon a watch in the middle of a desert i would not assume that it had come together all by itself I would KNOW that someone had created it. This is what the earth is a beautiful piece of perfect creation infinitely more complex than the watch and far more isolated, and yet why do we assume that that came about by chance?
I was lost in the Darkest parts of my own wicked ways, spiraling down a path of destruction leading me away from His Almighty ways, and all the while im going down ONLY ONE, He could save me. No matter how far i looked on this lowly planet, i never once found a soul who could manage, to show me the love that i truly needed, because on this planet aint nothing but hate and contempt have been breeded. the lowly snake slithering as he goes through the towns of man looking for lowly lowly souls, to feed on so that it could plant it's evil seeds, and so that throughout the generations nothing but evil and hate we could recieve, but those where the ways of the past, my brothers and sisters. the devil had a hold of us and he managed through our parents, down through the generations His ways have been lost, and because of the us, the devil has turned and tossed, We can All be saved, all we need is Thanksgiving, to the One who Above, for All of His Givings. The devils trying to stop me right now as i speak, but Faithful to the Lord and willit He, that i may be meek. Because it is He not i that gives you this message but it is The One that we All should seek. i know that it is hard to find Rest, as we all go through this test some call a game, every single last one of us, probably, training to gain and retain our fame. But That is not what this life is about, i have a Strong feeling that we are All getting our Water from the wrong wrong spout. because thats all the devil has for us is a little bit, of pleasure, then comes the pain. steady feeding our bodies what i see now Is Insane. because ya'll hafto see that we are all carnally minded, and This is the reason The LORD, us he has blinded, binding, ourselves to our own flesh, so that eventually we would All fail this Test. but know that The Lord, He loves us, and wishes nothing but the best, and all He wants is for us to Love Him all the while through this Test. some wonder why we see nadoes and quakes, He needs ya'll to know that its Ya'lls souls that He is trying to shake. and bake if you will, so the devil may not have his fill, to letchya'll know that there is NONE like that ALMIGHTY AND ALL POWERFULL ONE. i say full because Hes filled with Love, like None that we have seen on this lowly earth, but now that i have SEEN, my Eyes have been UnBlinded, and now it is He, He who signs this, letter so maybe that some of Ya'll could listen, and Maybe get the Message that He is trying to dish, out of His spout, so that ya'll might be fed, with all of His Love, His Water, And His Bread. Don't for a second think any of Ya'll are living, All of ya'll are dead and for the devil are you "living" as i sit here and do this all of the "dome" just know that it is Not me and that this is His tomb. He is singing through me in these words and this song, so that maybe one day we All can be free all the day long, and ya'll can say its cheesy if ya'll want, but just know the devil in you he does flaunt x) i had to stop and show ya'll how i felt about that one, cuz its the truth, and right now i have a Strong feeling He is swinging harder than that brother Babe Ruth, or ballin harder than micheal jordan, and in this song he Is Playing His Accordian. Ya'll just need to know that He is our Guardian, and right now im flying Higher than any single air jordan, because my love i gave to Him more than any of Ya'll so i guess i can say more than them. But dont getit twizted like boi's if ya'll know, that me and moreover Him, have a lot to show. we are all brothers and sisters, but i should call us the missers, because we all fail to see the smaller things in this world, without even thinking twice, what truly brings a man alot of happiness or to see the pain that ALOT of us have in us. i know that we are all hurting on the inside, and for ya'll who say we dont, Boi, you know that is a lie, because only with Him and not that evil leech from down south, can we truly fly. higher than the highest of trees or the tallest of mountains, But in Him we Have to trust, so that We may Drink From The One and Only True fountain, only because of Him can i do this for days, and its Because i gave Him my love, thanksgiving, and praise. so now that i have seen what it is truly to be Man, Men of God, all these hater out there who bout to say something aint nuthing more than sod. sorry if it dont make sense, just know that me and Him the latter first, We are just trying to give His children, ya'll some mother lovin cents. forgive me if i pause for no longer am i a vulgar man life is just a beach, and Now, He is playing in the sand, hopefully in the minds of the young, the daughters and sons, i have my holster, and now the Lord is my Gun, Shining Brighter, than a million suns, times two, because His love is True, actually make that twenty twenty, because He is aplenty, in me in you and All, i just hope that ya'll can hear His call, so that maybe that ya'll may not fall, into the Pit, but right now i can say the devil is probably having a fit, of anxiety cuz he is losing his "children" just know that we are God's and with me He has been pilfering, in my mind day and night, as i have been in my room trying to stay out of sight, of ya'll because all it seems like to me, that nothing to ya'll it would please, more, than to see one of your own fellow brother get shot and fall. when i look around me i dont see any real love, this evil surrounds me, but Now i DO NOT CARE, because the Lord, THE LORD, HE has found me. so now ya'll cannot touch, because with His love, im about to bust. with loving Faith and Trust, i put in Him, so that i can be led away from this life of sin, and Now that i have His Trust, my brotha's and sista's, not just the black ones, comeon now, that just is not a must, there is no such thing man, all that is, is nothing more than an evil thought, brought up in vain, so that maybe a man's soul, that leech, can be bought. Quit being evil, for it is Love, that should be sought, out so once again we may be fed from His Spout, for only He can give us what we need so that in the end we may succeed. my brothers and sisters all we need to do is Believe, and then, Anything, together, WE CAN ACHIEVE. this is an ode to ya'll so in hopes once again that ya'll may hear The Call, and will not fall, so one day me, ya'll, and The Almighty,Perfect, like a prefect without the er, Omnipotent, and Patient ONE, that together we May All Ball. and they keep telling me to stop, but i just cant my brothers me and Him are headed to the top, and right now i got The Heart Of A Lion, King, and pray tell me my brothers and sisters who are reading, what single Beast can stop that king? of the jungle we are running but with Him we can be free. out into the open pasture we all can roam, just know this is not me, and that this is His Tomb. its wierd how they're spelled alike but do not rhyme, im talking bout bomb my brothers, and its One of a Kind. in the Hopes that this petty rhyme, can help lead the black sheep, away from the Blind, being themselves, for who? tell me can save them from that? if you dont answer right then your a part of this blight that runs rampant through the streets, evil im talking about and all it wants to do is eat, your souls because it is angry at the Living God, hahahaha for it is nothing more than a sod, on His Cleat as He is Running, Hoping that some of these Words, hit you right in the stomach, and make you sick, but not you, im talking about the evil you, for we are all children of God, but we have made ourselves nothing more than a sod =( i say with a heavy heart, because all this time we have been playing the devil, his part, but with Him it is nothing but a fart, because He Forgives, and Only Through Him may we EVER, get the chance to Live, and im not talking about on the earth, im talking about another, and maybe one day you can see and i can Truly call you my Brother, for there is Life in Death, but it is only gained through this life which is a test, just know that when we die, if you have lived righteously, on that day you will Fly, for the Lord will Breathe His Breath in you when you die and like i said before You Will Fly, but not if you keep eating from the devil's table, for you can only eat from one, and i hope its Not the devil's table. for if we Eat from Him, we can All go back into His Stable, and only in doing that can we Ever truly be stable, only only if, we are eating from, The Living God's Table. and for ya'll who are sitting at your computers steadily dissin Him, i pray for you, because it you are missin, Him and the bigger picture, just know right now im taking a Big Gulp From His Ultimate Pitcher, not one from the MLB, and if you are listening then i pray that you sea, i mean see, but with Him we can fly over the one before, and higher than mike, dunk it in, right for a score, but not for 2 for it is for 3, because He is Holy in me, but atm holy in you, because you missing some parts, we all need to change, so that we may play His Part, that He intended from the Beginning, because only With Him can we ever be winning, but hahahaha not as long as we are sinning. for that is not the way that we was meant to walk, With Him we was mean to Walk and Talk. once again i say this way i, used to, but we choose to live, is insane in the membrane, but He is using me as His Template, lol or templar whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, ha just without the errrr. as i sit here steadily dissin em i mean the demons in the minds of the children of the One and Only, God Who Is Kind, i hope that they depart, so we can All gaze upon The Divine, not like wine or watch, i aint lil wayne, just know that i feel like im the only one who is sane. because i AM NOT PERFECT, do not get the wrong message for that would hurt me, only He is, and He just wants some love from His Kids, but for some odd reason... we still choose to do the evil leeches bids, for i feel he has sucked to much from us, all of our blood, i mean soul, it has tucked from us, and right now He is aiming at it with a Big Ol' Blunderbuss. to shoot it and unleech it, from His Children's Soul's so one day maybe we can gaze upon, That Wonderful City Of Gold, and dont letit peak your in ter ests, for if you do your not getting whats bests, from this test that He has beset, for our minds to ponder and think on, maybe in some of the hearts out there this message is shining, for He is a Beacon of Light, to shine out all the evils, and end this ugly, hateful blight, that courses through our vains, that nasty garbage that makes us feel insane, because no one is living right, and for That NONE is sane. you can talk and sit there and chatter, but i pray and hope that none get fatter, and im not talking because of mcdonalds, im talking about your ego and pride, because We Alll NEED to push that aside, all we seem to do is breed hate and contempt, sitting there looking for another hurt sould to feed on, thinking it makes us content, but just know NOW people, lolol all your doing is letting the devil be your PIMP! ha ha ha i think that really funny, because in the words of man that just makes ya'll some ho's, and please forgive my trespasses my sisters and brothers, for my vulgar words, because i Did Not mean to hurt, He's just trying to keep our faces from being rubbed in the dirt. but it really shouldnt matter because we are mud, and from One we all came, so can i not call ya'll blood??? nah im not talking about them two glock shotta's, im talking bout from The One Who Has Always Got Us, not us as in the navy, i mean us as in the ones who might sit on that bus, the one going to school and to the ones who drool in class, and all of us who needs a kick in the, pause, ya'll know what i mean, im just sitting here trying not be obscene, all im trying to do is get the bigger picture, through ya'll minds so that maybe one day, we can All WALK IN THE LORDS WAY. forgive me if i make any of ya'll mad, if i do know that i Am sad, but how about ya'll just go to the store and go and grab on of them happy hefty bags, you know i meant glad if you didnt you are simple, and forgive me as i sit here and bust this pimple, lol sorry that was nasty just know that i didnt, and know that we are all fake, and its time for some rhino plasty, or however its spelled im just hoping some hearts will melt, like the plastic we are, and become melded into flesh, as i sit here and type in this Soul Food test, for if ya'll can't hear me then your hearts are so cold, forgive me as i trespass, because, uhm, i Am not trying to be bold, im just tryna through some fia atcha hearts, in the hopes that you may leave the Dark, ness not loch just in case thats watchu thought, all you gotta do is leave your flesh behind, and know that He is the one who Should Be Sought, out so we can drank From His Spout, cuz the Lord Knows, man it has been a drought. we are all so thirsty, but in order to be filled its The Lord who must come firsty x) just know that me and Him are going Stooopid, and for those who are real maaan i thoughtchu knew it. and if you dont i pray you haven't already blew it, up i mean your ego, like a balloon, just know right now i feel like taz boi, yup them looney toones, or tunes whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, just without the err. and i say pre because He was always here, yes before you and me, but with Him i wanna letchu know that we can all be as pure, and as white as the snow, just like powder we can all be melted, i mean melded into the beings we were meant to be, so one day we may fly free as a dove, Right over the sea, so that we all can reach New Jerusalem, yup just right where we was all meant to be, that is the Golden City for those who did not, know, im just hoping that one day we can All be as pure as the snow, because the evil has taunted and flaunted and given us a show, to peak i mean perk up our ears and it, that leech i mean, gave us nothing but fears, fears of ourselves and one another, fears from our sisters and daughter, Father, and brothers, but we have a right to Fear the Living God, because to Him we have all become a sod, He is sorrowful and cries as we follow, the evil being, who was never meant to be followed, and i felt His pain at one point in time, yes i Am talking About the Divine, we both cried together, in my room, because of the little things we miss, something just as small as, a heartfelt kiss... for it is the little things that bring us the greatest joy, not some diamond chain, or a, wind up toy, the biggest thing of all that should, is His Love, should bring us the Greatest joy, in the world, for thats all it is man just cars and noise, all the long going our way, Missing the sweetest noise, zes ya'll know what i mean, im talking about the One who is Never obscene, for He is Just And Right, in each and every single way, and for our sins my borhters and sisters, we have to pay, but do not fret for it is never to late, I think we all need to call upon The Divine, and we should All go on a date, do not worry for on this date there is no rape, or murder, or hate, for that is of the devil, and Your Soul it will take, there is no worries once you follow Him, we should all be hand in hand as we walk down this path, called, life Never having to worry about no pain or strife, or for a bigger picture His Wrath, but ONLY IF WE DRINK FROM HIS PITCHER. for The All Powerful and Righteous Wrath, only comes when you stray from His Path, it is there to show us our wrongs...can you feel His Soul as i sit here and Sing His song? and with Him i will NEVER fall, because with my Brother, I will always Hear His Call. i say we but it is Him, who say these words to in the hopes, that those who have an Ear to listen may never Fall, into the Pit, all you have to do is have Faith, Follow The Ten, Believe, and never EVER Quit, for in order to gain His All Perfect and Good Graces, we have to eliminate ALL the Hate and evil, in all sorts of places, i have a feeling this song was wrote long before, just in His mind and now in mine, and i sing His song in the Hopes, that you follow Him and not any of these "popes" for no hope lies in them, lol and if you truly think aboutit that actually rhymed, just know that im thinking of Him, foremost, but ya'll too as i steadily write This Rhyme, it comes from above yup, Straight From the Divine, in the Hopes that one day ya'll can SEE, exactly it was that we was missing, so we can All fly over the sea. Man this thing is long but i should Say God, because this is His Rhyme, and not from a sod, like me or you, if you real you can feel its True, as His Sword aims at the hearts of His good, flying Straight and Through, lol i mean True, but them if you can follow my friend, all we gotta do is sing Praises and Thanksgiving to Him, until the very end, and give Him all of our love, Because WITHOUT HIM, ha There WOULD BE NO LOVE, all there would be is pain and suffering, and i hope that the ones who are, suffer, i mean acating, Might actually stop and take the time to sit there and be debating, against the devil of course, cuz all it wants to do is, lead us, right, or left, but straight off our course. Lord Please Forgive me, if i am being coarse just know that i am your back, and You Are My Horse, lol ya'll might think He's heavy but He's really not, and i Love Him till Death, i mean Life, cuz i have found It, but back to the point, because i HE HAS TAUGHT, never went to church or none of that, maybe when i was younger but none of that, for our minds our are churches, ha gotit backwards but i feel as tall as the burches, talking bout them trees man im over the seas man, just know i cant, wait, My Father, until You Kick Over My Can Man x) aw man i thoughit was funny, because he's One Cool Dude, and i am His, Bunny, i mean Collie, and know that as i, i mean He, but as i bark, that i have a Strong feeling, that i am playing my Part, or His i prefer the latter but the choice is yurs, because it is His Puzzle, and i am the last part, i cant be for certain because the Knowledge is His, but im just trying to bring His Black Sheep back, you know i mean His KIDS, He thoughtit was funny, But ya'll best Believe that He NOR i the first comes first, but neither one of us is No, pause, Dummy, lol but if you choose you can beat and bite, whatever you do just know it is out of spite, and i dont capitilize because its an evil word, just know me and HIM, are trying to end this wrongful blight, and saying these words i Hope that maybe, just maybe some can be given the Sight, that HE intended us to have, right, from Go, talking bout monopoly,lol but no no more, from the start maaaan all HE ever wanted was us to give our heart, which is HIS, because He gave to us, All that is HIS, HE just Wanted someone to talk to man, thats why HE made HIS Kids, HE was all alone, and then HE built, a Beautiful place for us, and HIM, to walk and talk all the while, just laughing and talking, seeing eachother smile =) because HE is our FATHER, He's not as mean ha as ya'll would believe, just know that HE TRULY IS ONE BENEVOLENT KING. lol ha ha i think this is funny, He knows what im talking about, cuz this is all of the top of the dome with barely a second to pause, Just Know the THE LION KING, Has Opened HIS Claws, Blessed be the children who took the time to listen, to the message that a, and The King is steadily dishin, i say a because i am one too, but know that im a servant, and from a Seed i did Grew, i dont care if it makes no sense to ya'll because i have heard the Lords Call, and they, they know who they are, are always listening, and as He types, through, me i have a feeling they are about to call, Prayer is the Best Wireless Connection X) aint no service down here got that type of Connection, i just hope that i get to see some of ya'll at that intersection, i mean Crossroads, bone thugz n harmony, they said it first, man thats the song man and if you feel their soul, then maybe you should hurt, because those bois on the streets back in the day, all they was doing was searching for some Peace, but in the streets, the oppressors, following the devil, have no love for us in the slums, just know that we All have a Holster and God Is our Gun, we dont need no metal, for The Lord our issues HE will settle, all you gotta do is Have some Faith, saying this in hope that some dont see any wraiths, talking demons people come now and please listen, as the Lord spits his song and these Words HE is dishin, out yup you getting it word of mouf, lol or mouth whichever you prefer just DONT follow that lowly snake, yup the one down south, it might try and offer pleasure and happiness butits all fake, HA what do ya'll expect from a lowly snake? remeber eve as she sat under that tree? sitting there thinking and feeling the breeze? the snake spoke in her Ear temptation it did bring, and after teel me WHO did she fear? she had a split second of happiness and thats all it can give, and after that she felt the WRATH which is ONLY HIS, lol i hope that ya'll see, the way we live people, it just wasn't meant to be, i have a feeling that there all up there laughing, with, not at me as i type out His message, and i pray ALMIGHTY FATHER, THE ONES WHO HAVE AN EAR TO LISTEN PLEASE FATHER PLEASE LET THE HEAR. and the ones who dont i pray you dont hit him hard, maybe just a little tap, just like Babe Ruth, on that baseball card x) Peace be with you my sisters and brothers, just know that HIS LOVE IS LIKE NO OTHER, GOD BLESS ALL WHO FINISHED, AND I PRAY YOUR SOULS NEVER, DIMINISH. ONE HEART IS ALL, AND WITH THAT HEART WE CAN NEVER FALL, lol i said i was finished, but i dont think HE is as you can tell this words are not mine, THEY COME FROM THE UPPER BEING, yup THE DIVINE!!! i think im going to cut Him short and please Forgive me, because i know HE could go all day, BECAUSE I CAN FEEL HIM IN ME.
It is fortunate for you that you possess an absentee father figure who is so obliging as to be inside you constantly.
It is also fortunate that this penetration is such a sensual affair for you. Might I enquire as to whether it hurt the first time you detected His presence inside you? Is this presence particularly large? Does it take some time for God to place all of himself inside you? Does he take his time, or does he try to enter you as quickly as possible?
If and when he removes himself from you, do you feel dirty and unclean?
Have you told your parents?
Does he reserve his attentions for you, or does he pay similar visits to your friends?
OK, so if you want to offend chiristians you can. As one myself I can say He has never left me. I can always feel his presence. If I ever stop that its because I have wondered away from him myself. It doesn't hurt. It gives me peace, hope and security. How can that hurt. I KNOW he loves me no matter what. I don't feel dirty or unclean becuase I ask his forgiveness and that of the person I hurt. He doesn't try to enter us, he lets us choose. Why do you try to make it sound luike sex or rape?
Why would you're parents need to know? stop implyinfg that person is a mindless idiot. They aren't they are showing you their heart.
He also can be with EVERY ONE AT ONCE. And yes, my friend became a christian and has stopped wanting to commit suicede. Like me.
I must admit, sir, you make a compelling argument.
I can always feel his presence.
What does His presence feel like? Is it penetrative or encapsulating? Hard or soft? Wet or dry?
If I ever stop that its because I have wondered away from him myself.
How, sir, can you wander away from that which is pervasive?
It gives me peace, hope and security.
Then I submit, sir, that your mind lacks the discipline to prosper by rational means.
I KNOW he loves me no matter what.
One cannot, by definition, know that which one accepts on faith.
don't feel dirty or unclean becuase I ask his forgiveness
And without that forgiveness, do you consider the human from to be inherently unclean?
He doesn't try to enter us, he lets us choose.
The only alternative He offers, however, is an eternity of "recreational sadism".
Why do you try to make it sound luike sex or rape?
Because of the gross indecency that has been perpetrated against my fellow man by the simpering fools whose business it is to spread nonsense such as this. I am convinced that men are, and of a right ought to be, free to ferment their own principles, without reference to an arbitrary , malicious deity, or to any group of madmen claiming to represent such a deity. The religious are a coven of magicians, sir.
Why would you're parents need to know?
Had I a child, sir, I would fain know if he was susceptible to visits by an imaginary apparition.
stop implyinfg that person is a mindless idiot.
How can one accept as mindful, one who has taken into their hearts a philosophy that is based upon a fanciful account of wizardry?
He also can be with EVERY ONE AT ONCE.
This is stupid nonsense. Your argument is based on magic, sir. Magic!
And yes, my friend became a christian and has stopped wanting to commit suicede. Like me.
A desperate man can convince himself of anything. If I were you, I would be all the more driven to suicide by the notion that there is a monstrous and unsympathetic deity watching from above, waiting for the moment to strike us into our graves, and set our immortal selves among the fires of a shrieking inferno, &c;.
God is real and you know why i can win any deate with saying hes real? I can just say god did that. For example, if someone said that the big bang is the reason why we are here than i would say, god did that. Or if you said adam and eve is not real and its evolution than i would say god created that. SO SUCK ON THAT!
If there is no evidence leading up to a God, I do not believe. Any sort of God would not ignore suffering like there has always been. Any 'miracle' these days can be fully debunked.
So I do not see a point in believing in something that's made up.
God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If you look at this definition, it is either impossible, to exist in our realm of existence, or... it [God] is our realm of existence. The only thing that you can fit these characteristics too, is the universe itself. The universe is "all powerful" over this domain because it is the domain. The universe is "all knowing" of this domain because it is the domain. And the universe is "all present" in this domain because it is the domain.
The only "miracle" that can't be debunked is the fact that there is this realm... before existence couldn't have been absolute non-existence. Existence has either always been here or it came from non-existence which makes absolutely no sense (but still may be true). So if God is the very fabric of the universe and existence itself, how can we prove that it doesn't exist??? We have no other choice but to accept it.
Also, in this idea, if people are suffering, and they are made of God, God cannot ignore the suffering people because he too is suffering.
The universe wouldn't suffer in your idea, only the part of it which has suffering as an emergent property of its smaller parts would be. The entire universe would have to have the quality of suffering or of perceiving it in order for it to suffer. Even if it did suffer, it could ignore it like i ignored the blister on my foot as I skated last night.
God is both the person that is suffering, and the suffering itself. When I say that God is existence that means everything that exists. The material the suffering person is made of, the thoughts of the suffering person (because the thoughts exist, to the person thinking the thoughts), and the suffering that the person is feeling.
Again, God is all knowing. He knows the suffering because he is the suffering. Not entirely, because the person suffering is only a competent of God. Just as acknowledging the blister on your foot doesn't change you into a giant blister.
I like the idea of god being the universe. you found a creative valid solution to what could embody a set of propertys that I previously would of said nothing could. Kudos to you.
The universe though does not suffer, to suggest it does is anthropomorphism. A part of it suffers. The same as the blister on my foot doesn't turn me into a giant blister, only a part of me is a blister.
With the analogy of the blister on the foot, your whole body doesn't suffer, but you could say "my body is suffering" because the component of your body that is suffering (the blister or your sensory input from your foot about the blister) is still part of your body.
When I say the "universe" suffers I mean that a component of the universe suffers. The person that is suffering is a part of the universe so the universe suffers. Not the entire thing, but the part of the universe that is the person.
God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If you look at this definition, it is either impossible, to exist in our realm of existence, or... it [God] is our realm of existence. The only thing that you can fit these characteristics too, is the universe itself. The universe is "all powerful" over this domain because it is the domain. The universe is "all knowing" of this domain because it is the domain. And the universe is "all present" in this domain because it is the domain.
You're not proving god's existence, you're just describing the universe and then tacking "god" onto it.
Your argument is like "The universe is X, Y, Z, therefore god."
The only "miracle" that can't be debunked is the fact that there is this realm... before existence couldn't have been absolute non-existence. Existence has either always been here or it came from non-existence which makes absolutely no sense (but still may be true). So if God is the very fabric of the universe and existence itself, how can we prove that it doesn't exist??? We have no other choice but to accept it.
You start by defining god, and then proving that it exists. You don't describe something else in terms you associate with god and expect that something to become god.
Also, in this idea, if people are suffering, and they are made of God, God cannot ignore the suffering people because he too is suffering.
"You're not proving god's existence, you're just describing the universe and then tacking "god" onto it."
I was merely proposing a different perspective by comparing the supposed characteristics of God with the only thing that we can attribute these characteristics to, the realm in which things exist.
My argument was more like "God == X, Y, Z == Existence"
"You start by defining god, and then proving that it exists. You don't describe something else in terms you associate with god and expect that something to become god."
The Bible is a book written in only so many words. It cannot or may not have been designed to explain to it's readers in great scientific detail, what God is. The point of the Bible is not to probe God. God isn't something to be poked at with a stick and measured. If you don't believe, which is all it takes, then ignore it. No one is forcing you to change, in fact, if there is a God it is allowing you to live your life the way you see it.
"Yet there is still suffering."
I think good and bad are on the same scale, and that is the scale of quality. If good can exist, which I think it does, so will bad. You pay for your good with bad, and visa versa. So, yes. There is still suffering. I was saying that if we exist, God allows you to suffer and endures it with you, because it's important to know suffering to know virtue.
I was merely proposing a different perspective by comparing the supposed characteristics of God with the only thing that we can attribute these characteristics to, the realm in which things exist.
That doesn't make it a logical defense. Proving that one thing exists then expecting another thing to exist because it shares traits with the first, or has been redefined to be the same, doesn't prove that second thing to exist.
The Bible is a book written in only so many words. It cannot or may not have been designed to explain to it's readers in great scientific detail, what God is. The point of the Bible is not to probe God. God isn't something to be poked at with a stick and measured. If you don't believe, which is all it takes, then ignore it. No one is forcing you to change, in fact, if there is a God it is allowing you to live your life the way you see it.
Which can only mean the bible isn't sacred or special, but a work of fiction.
I think good and bad are on the same scale, and that is the scale of quality. If good can exist, which I think it does, so will bad. You pay for your good with bad, and visa versa. So, yes. There is still suffering. I was saying that if we exist, God allows you to suffer and endures it with you, because it's important to know suffering to know virtue.
Again dodging the point. There is still suffering, which can only exist in a universe that has no god, has a callous god, or has an evil god.
"Proving that one thing exists then expecting another thing to exist because it shares traits with the first, or has been redefined to be the same, doesn't prove that second thing to exist."
Oh wait, I see the flaw in this argument... I never did prove that the universe exists. kthx brb.
Oh wait, I see the flaw in this argument... I never did prove that the universe exists. kthx brb.
I'll make the statement easier for you to understand. Redefining god to be the universe doesn't prove god's existence, it only proves the universe's existence. What you did instead was equivocate god [general definition] with god [your new definition] and let the reader conflate the two as one often does when definitions change several times in a paragraph.
Who's to say that God has any interference in this world? Maybe he sparked the Big Bang and is now an omniscient observer. The reason I believe he doesn't affect the world at all is the fact that we have free will. A truly good God would not control us; He would let us choose for ourselves what to do, what to think, and what to believe in.
So maybe He's not ignoring suffering, but lamenting over the suffering, knowing that helping the sufferer would be the wrong thing to do. I know this sounds pessimistic about God, but in reality, I believe it portrays Him in a very optimistic light. It shows that we are all equal as human beings, that the differences in us come from our own actions and these actions help or hinder our descendants as well.
you have a different conceptualization of god then most people.
I'm assumeing you do think he is:
All powerful(before he created humans and gave them free will)
created everything(except human actions,yet he did create humans)
and is all knowing(except for what humans are going to do)
If god was all powerful, couldn't he create a universe where free will didn't result in suffering?
If not, then why create something knowing it will suffer and that helping it would be wrong; putting god in a delima of his own doing that he laments.
Also Free will is nonsensical; its the idea that we are neither determined nor random. Its the idea that we are uncaused causes, which would mean our actions,thoughts and beliefs have no relation to the world(random). It is also used to put the blame on someone, saying that they should of "choose" differently as if their actions/thoughts ect should have a relation to the world(quasi-determined).
I don't believe He created everything in a Biblical sense. I tend to think He sparked the Big Bang or some other type of event, which created the Universe the way it is now. The reason I believe this is because science has shown that the laws of nature don't change and there has been evidence of various theories that support this claim- that God did not create the world like the Bible states He did.
The fact that God is all powerful and created everything leaves him outside of the space-time continuum. First because time is relative and space is only a series of possibilities (as defined in quantum physics). God’s existence is not dependent on his interaction with creation. That he exists doesn’t necessarily mean that he loves us or is kind (that is an assumption)
If he is not to be found in the space-time continuum, Does he matter?
Also, god is the more complicated answer.
Its "Some how the universe exists, how? I don't know." vrs. "God created the universe. How does god exist? I don't know and I don't know why god created the universe or if he even really did because I have no evidence, etc.".
If there is no evidence leading up to a God, I do not believe. Any sort of God would not ignore suffering like there has always been. Any 'miracle' these days can be fully debunked.
So I do not see a point in believing in something that's made up. -Falhalterra(12)
Ok, so what is your alternative belief to how the universe came to be? Huh? Oh- wait... before you say anything, I don't believe it because it is a made up theory and cannot be proven. And please don't say the universe existed because of the Big Bang Theory, because this can be "refuted" with the same question. Where did the Big Bang come from? Who caused it? Who caused that being to cause it? Who caused the being who caused the being who caused it? etc. Theoretically, there must be at some point, an end, because otherwise supernatural hierarchy would be a paradox, and it would have been impossible for this world to exist.
The evidence is all around you AND within you to acknowledge this truth, but you choose to ignore it, God gave us the ability to choose our path, He does not interfere with your free will. If He wanted puppets He would have created us as such, the suffering you are talking about comes at the hands of men (humans) because of greed, lust, deception, bottom line, SIN, and we are very sinful to our nature...
God is sovereign, Loving, compassionate ALL knowing and JUST...
God Bless you and I hope he opens up your mind to Him...
There is no evidence that god exists. Seeing is believing. If he exists then why doesn't he come down to earth and show himself to us. If he exists then why does he allow millions of innocents to be killed. If he exists and has all these majestic superpowers, then why doesn't he do something about wars. Instead, he, if he exists at all, just sits around and treats the whole thing as an over elaborate joke. If he exists then why doesn't he do something about poverty and suffering. If he exists then he would care and something would be done. Nothing has been done. Therefore not only does he not exist but is also a mass murderer and an implacable nazi sadist. god does not exist. End of story.
I only watched the first 30 seconds, but this is your proof? God hasn't affected the planet since... Ever! Evolution flatly contradicts any need for a God to have created the universe.
If God doesn't exist! Then who created you!?? How did you come in this world!? If humans are responsible for the creation of non-living things!! Then how do you believe that no one is responsible for the creation of living thing!??? I strongly oppose you!! God exists!! We can't see him but he exists..... there are many things that we can't see.... so what's your opinion that such things don't exist cause we can't see him!???
All I know is that it's only me who can control my life. I'm not a puppet in the hands of a unknown power (that is if it really exists). If there was a so called supervising power then everything would be prefect in our lives which is not exactly the fact. How on earth can we beleive on things that don't have a proof of existence.
Cheers to the imagination of those who craeted it, I'm sorry it probably just exists in your head and that too I guess out of fear, not acceptance.
I definitely do not beleive in the existence of god!
THEN TELL ME WHAT YOU BELEIVE IN?! NOTHING! How can you beleive in nothing life has purpose. nothing has to be able to create nothing there cant be a nothing creating everything. You cant have legos coming together themselves. There has to be a creater behind a creation.
The fundamental laws of the universe (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong force, and Weak force) are required for a being like God to exist. However, the fundamental laws of the universe did not exist until nanoseconds AFTER the Big Bang. Even if he did not require those laws to exist, if he CAN physically affect the universe (blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes) than he was most certainly torn apart and killed by the Singularity that caused the Big Bang. Or the explosion. There was no way he could have survived the beginning of the Universe and still be able to physically affect the universe.
Also, the purpose of life is literally just to reproduce.
I do not believe in God so therefore I say he does not exist, there is not one shred of evidence outside of personal accounts that proves Gods existence.
ok you say there is no evidence that God is real. well where is your evidence that he isnt real????! Explain how humanity was created....explain how everything was made..math...reading......sex......it wasnt just there !!! we just didnt float ta earth someone or something created everything so give me your evidence
OK you say there is no evidence that God is real. well where is your evidence that he isn't real????
I don't have any, that is the point, if your argument for Gods existence is "the fact that there is a god" then you need to back that up, what I asked was where is the evidence, I never stated I had any.
Explain how humanity was created....explain how everything was made..math...reading......sex......it wasnt just there !!!
Humans as Homosapiens are possibly one of the newest species on the planet evolved over the last six million years through successive mutations from a common ancestor that we share with Chimpanzees.
Maths and reading came to be as a larger and more logic orientated brain started to evolve in archaic homosapiens.
Larger brains came from the evolution of bipedal locomotion which took over from quadrupedal locomotion, this happened as the plush forested area of Africa receded leaving some species to pick out a living from a more flat (no more trees) and arid landscape. The necessity to crouch to pick tubers and other ground plants to eat coupled with the fact that they had to travel longer distances and bipedal locomotion freed up the hands to carry and waisted less energy. The freedom of the hands allowed the species to put these to increasingly difficult tasks until it came to the point about 30,000 years ago where cave drawings started which over time became glyphs and a protowriting system that became something like hieroglyphics of ancient Egypt these could be the origins of reading. Four thousand years ago and maths comes into being, I'm not too sure on this but I think it was early Babylonian tablets that contained the first known mathematical writings.
As for sex well that is as old as life its self, nearly as it consisted of asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is a huge topic which I would find hard to compress so read the link.
There is a book called The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins I would advise any one to read it.
If some of the dates and stuff are a bit off it is because I am pulling this stuff off the top of my head.
we just didn't float ta earth someone or something created everything so give me your evidence
Why did someone or something have to have created anything. God is a non answer it explains nothing and only provides a much bigger question, where did God come from, we know where a lot things come from as there is tons of evidence to look to, there is no evidence for Gods existence, God for all intents and purposes is a mythical character trying to find evidence of his existence is like trying to find evidence of the existence of Fairies.
I never stated that I came from a monkey. I stated that humans share a COMMON ANCESTOR with chimpanzees. If you are going to make statements about evolution then I would advise learning about it. I am far more open to the suggestion that all living creatures-through successive and slight variation- over a vast amount of time evolved from simple beginnings, then a omnipotent contradiction in six days brought about every living thing, Why? As there is a mountain of evidence to support it. On the other hand; you are willing to believe purely on the word of others.
And no I don't think I shall be going to Monkey Heaven, I will be broken down by worms and saprophytic Bacteria until all the elements and compounds that make me go back into the Earths delicate balance. I am OK with this and thus can live my life free of the mind controlling Dogma that you will dedicate the rest of your life to: never being able to live out your desires.
you want us to disprove something that doesn't have any proof of its own, simple
there is no proof, therefore it can not be.
math is a human invention, so is reading, sex is the natural instinct of animals, and if you had even a basic understanding of evolution then you would know we didn't just "float to earth" but we evolved over millions of years from tiny organisms.
Where did those tiny organisms come from? I'll keep asking questions like atheists until you admit that both evolution AND creation are based on faith, not evidence.
it is believed that these organisms came from a meteor that hit earth, and unlike creation, there's plenty of evidence for evolution. we have already observed micro-evolution, natural selection and fossil records. Evolution has been a developing field of research for the past 200 years, and is supported by science, and creationists has shown nothing to prove their beliefs.
It is impossible on every level to prove something DOES NOT exist. If someone makes a preposterous claim (An invisible being created all life) than it is the supporter's duty to prove their claim. Scientific law states that the only reason to believe in something is evidence, and since there is no conclusive evidence to prove God exists, I don't believe he does.
To address your concerns on how humanity was created, there is a very precise study that encompasses the history of life on Earth. Billions of years ago, long before dinosaurs existed, there was no life on Earth. None. But if the conditions are right, (and this has been tested and proven in a laboratory) basic elements can come together with electricity and form Amino Acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, which are, in turn, the building blocks of single-celled life. Single celled organisms clump together in cultures, which think and move like one creature. Symbiotic relationships like those then evolved to be larger, to more easily take out the competition. One of the first animals on Earth was a fish, because bacteria evolved quickly in the ocean. Fish species split, grew, and evolved. Humans and all mammals are descendants of the first fish. Insects are the descendants of the arthropods that evolved to feed on those fish. About sex, God did not create it. Any animal that cannot reproduce dies out in the first generation.
It is ignorant and primitive to say an intangible being made it all pop into existence.
That is because you are blind to the facts around you, you must seek Him in the Spiritual way and not from a human stand point. Humans are ignorant to this fact because they do not know that we are Spirit living in this decaying fleshly form. When you die and you will ONE DAY you will find out... I just hope it is not to late for you... THERE YOU GO -- NOW YOU CANNOT BOAST THAT YOU WAS NOT DISPUTED...
If a divine being can be defined, you can examine its definition for consistency. If its inconsistent/contradictory you can discount it. If it can not be defined then it can not be known and is thus useless. If it has a consistent definition and that definition states it as supernatural, then it is by definition non-empirical and can not be verified by observation.
"1. Week are Protected - Ex. Mammals overtook Dinosaurs"
Natural selection is when individuals that are best suited for the environment are able to reproduce and pass on their genes, which were fit for the environment. In the case of dinosaurs and mammals, a cataclysmic asteroid hit Earth and a lot of dust blocked the atmosphere from allowing too much sun to reach plants. Many plants died because they lacked sunlight. Then, the herbivorous dinosaurs couldn't maintain a large diet because of lack of ample food. Then, the carnivorous dinosaurs couldn't maintain their diets because there wasn't enough meat to eat. Meanwhile, mammals at the time were small and rodent-like, which meant they only needed small diets.
This is a correlation, but not causation. The wicked don't get destroyed because they are wicked. They get destroyed because their governments are not well-equipped to survive. For example, the Soviet Union collapsed in large part because they did not have food. They didn't have food because Lysenko was completely backwards in his way of thinking when it came to evolution and its role on agriculture. They didn't collapse just because they were our enemies.
"3. Planned Execution - Wonderful success rate (absolute no wast)"
I'm honestly not really sure what you mean here, so could you please elaborate? :)
"4. Beauty beyond description - Needs great skill set to achieve it!"
We find beauty in nature through order (sometimes not so, but usually yes). Well scientists have been able to simulate an early Earth atmosphere and have been able to assemble amino acids, the building blocks of life, without manipulation of molecules. This means that things like amino acids assemble that way on their own and the universe has a lot of order to it. Why? Maybe it's God who's behind it, but it doesn't matter because I'm merely pointing out that beauty is not created by God directly.
Also, as a side note, if He is an intelligent designer, then we should all have perfect bodies without mistakes because an intelligent design from a perfect deity should not have flaws. However, if you look at the human body, we have blind spots in our eyes and we have a choking hazard since our trachea and esophagus intersect. These two little flaws could have easily been fixed by an all-powerful God. And that's why He did not design us.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of warlords in charge in Africa
3. Planned Execution - Wonderful success rate (absolute no wast)
Some would argue planned execution was itself evil, for example that dude Christians made up, Jesus.
4. Beauty beyond description - Needs great skill set to achieve it!
Well first, anyone can describe anything, it just takes a bit of imagination. And second, there is no correlation between god and beauty by any stretch. What one does or does not consider beautiful may or may not exist with or without any magical super daddy.
If that's true, then the origins of the idea of God are flawed. If modern research cannot prove an entity like God, how do you (or how did medieval philosophers) know that he exists? Scientific law states that the only reason for believing in something is conclusive proof. Not believing in god won't affect us if he is entirely independent from this universe. Believing in god just makes you look primitive.
The existence of a divine being is unknown. You cannot prove it nor can you disprove it, we are simply not that advanced as a species yet.
That's a cop-out answer. There are plenty of claims we hear about in life every day that we will never be able to disprove or prove, but we dismiss them for lack of evidence. Why is "god" immune to this and not "aliens are in my backyard" or "global warming is a conspiracy between wealthy reptilian men and ancient aliens who built the pyramids against us."
The only reason people believe god exists is because they are afraid to die.
What do i mean by that?
Humans seem to have been gifted with an intelligence, and because of that we're smart enough to realize "oh shit we're going to die someday" But also, as a result of the materialistic society we live in today, people become attached to their lives, to their sense of self. With their jobs, family, cars, hobbies etc., the begin to want to live forever, and don't want to admit to themselves that "I ,name, am mortal and will die, and once i die, i will not exist as name anymore, there will be no I, name, because the whole idea of I, name is contained within my mortal brain.
With that in mind, and the desperate desire to deny the power and existence of death as a part of life, they create an after life with "God" where they can live forever by "his" side as name, they never have to die.
People decide to lie to themselves about their own mortality, insisting that God exists and will save them from death and give them "life everlasting" THIS STUFF IS IN CHURCH TEACHINGS AND LITURGIES
Since we now see that the very IDEA of god has been constructed by humanity because of its genuine FEAR of Death, we know God to be merely a construct and therefore non-existent.
Now that is not to say the "God" has "his" affect on people. Whether or not he exists in this universe, he most definitely exists in the minds of those who believe, and their actions are definitely influenced by his "presence"
Thus we arrive at the second reason for God's existence, Social order.
We all know that human beings are VERY prone to immediate gratification and are present-minded fools. Some very-intelligent person realized a long time ago that people would do WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANTED, and destroy everyone in the process. Now there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" with that, its human nature, but for society as a whole to flourish its not a good idea.
So our smart guy thought "Hey, I'll convince everyone that there's some magical, omnipotent, omniscient being that will throw them to a terrible place called "Hell" once they die, if they've been "bad". Or, if they've been "good" all their life, they can go to a place called heaven where they get to live forever! and enjoy sweet virgins!
Thus giving humans an incentive to be good! My God, it seems that we're being treated like children, candy dangling in our face, available to us only if we've been good! haha
THIS IS AN UNFAIR GENERALIZATION! I believe God exists and it is not because I am afraid to die! I believe it because it is true. www.thetruthproject.org
The only reason people believe god exists is because they are afraid to die.
I am not afraid to die.
as a result of the materialistic society we live in today, people become attached to their lives, to their sense of self.
The emphasys is mine. How does it apply to the 6000 years of human history?
they create an after life with "God" where they can live forever by "his" side as name, they never have to die.
How does it apply to religions that don't have an afterlife?
Thus we arrive at the second reason for God's existence, Social order.
It is a good theory. I know, for a conspiracy chit chat kind of good. Unfortunately, you can't back it up, can you? It is very difficult to justify "God's existence" by Christian religion alone, specially when some widely different religions existed thousands of years prior. How do you justify "God's existence" if we remove the Christian religion from the scene?
we as people have free will and are not controled by some big man up stairs telling us what to do and how to live i say that there is no god becuse god says we have to live a certain way to get to "heaven" but in the end we are going to "hell" becuse we did something bad in our past so screw it >.>
Gods were invented the same way as ghosts, trolls and other imaginary creatures. People needed something to believe in and protect themselves, and religion was the best way to do just that. Quoting a certain video game characters ingenius opinion: ''The sky was blue, but there was no God''.
any thing will have an origin.....thenn god should also have it........then confusion enters....so it is better to to believe in proofs ans not in confusins..so god doesn't exists..and also it is a kind of law....
At least science can be proven but fiction fairy tales like the myth of god doesn't have any proof so it is all false. So to all you people saying yes, tell me, do you have any proof and if so, i'd like to see it. Truth is, that you have no proof so you just lost your argument
If there is a god I don't believe it'd be the Christian one. I don't think you can be all knowing and all loving. He knew what was going to happen to his creation, that most would "choose" hell and the horrible things that would happen. God wouldn't even need people and knowing what he knew if he still made people he'd be petty and human acting.
The definition of all knowing does not include future events. The definition of all knowing states that God knows everything that there is to know, that is, everything that has happened, and everything that is happening. The future did not happen yet, its possibilities are open, and there is nothing to 'know' about the future as the knowledge is not available yet. The idea that God must know the future arised from people attempting to merge the pagan ideas of predestination to Christian religion. It is not supported by the Bible.
that most would "choose" hell
Hell does not exist. Hell is not on the Bible. Hell is another pagan myth that was introduced to Christian religion when it was merged with Greek philosophy during the late 2nd century and late 3rd century.
Either Way, If God Exist Or Not. I Believe Some Religions Are Good For Society. With All The Corruption In The World Today, I Think It Would Be Good For People To Have The Same Fear Of Their Consequences As Some Children Have Had When They Know They're Gonna Get Spanked For Something They Did.
The nature of God, according to myself, is to not exist. For to create existance, one must first not exist to outrule contradiction. This is to say that God is actually the manifestation of existence from nonexistence. And to define nonexistence, one would say it is without or beyond the limits of space or time. Is that not God?
-
Here is my opinion now:
-
The existence of a god is an unfounded and undesireable belief. Religion has hitherto brought forth war and greed. We are better off without a god. Further, a god should not be your means of a moral compass, your own mind should be fully capable of discerning right from wrong.
"The nature of God, according to myself, is to not exist. For to create existance, one must first not exist to out rule contradiction. This is to say that God is actually the manifestation of existence from nonexistence. And to define nonexistence, one would say it is without or beyond the limits of space or time. Is that not God?"
I think you're on the right track here, but God doesn't have to either exist of not exist. The definition of exist is to be. Can something be that isn't in space time and that isn't measurable in any way? I don't know.
"The existence of a god is an unfounded and undesireable belief. Religion has hitherto brought forth war and greed. We are better off without a god. Further, a god should not be your means of a moral compass, your own mind should be fully capable of discerning right from wrong."
Now this is what I don't understand. The existence of God is unfounded and undesirable. The existence of god assumes God actually exists, in which case you wouldn't have a say in how it's founded or how desirable a truth it is. You mean to say "the believe in the existence of God".
Religion has brought about a lot of wicked things because it is a human construct. Even Jesus said that the churches of his time were corrupt and be proclaimed to be the son of God. So, the belief in God didn't directly cause said trouble. It was the religious organizations that founded themselves on the belief in God. To say that we are better off not believing in God because of what religion has done, is to say that we're better off without cars because of NASCAR accidents.
The Bible states that man is flawed, corrupt and imperfect. It would be best to stick with the word of the Bible as your moral compass but most importantly make your own decisions. Don't have people telling you what to believe because you don't really learn the value of right judgement. You don't know why right is right and wrong is wrong. You won't know good from bad and bad from good. You won't know God and God won't know you.
So in a sense I think you're right on, you say last that we are all fully capable of making right decisions, and I believe this too. Religious organizations are convincing people that we need help to serve God when this just isn't true.
Theists offer absolutely no credible evidence that god exists. The only way that god exists is as a figment of peoples' imagination, like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. How so many people can believe in a concept that is strewn with contradictions is beyond me.
id say no. Faith is something that can not ever be proven. Science is something that can be tested and proven. God is flawed because we know everything about him and it is still not enough to have done what the Big Bang and Evolution has done. Occam Razor.
Another does God exist debate? Has there been any scientific evidence to the contrary? No. Not one shred of prove that has ever surfaced as factual and concrete evidence.
There is no evidence supporting the idea that a god exists, and the burden of proof lies with the side of an argument that is positing an idea rather than the side that is denying that belief. Otherwise, we should all believe in unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and tooth fairies. Therefore, until evidence can be brought forth, the rational position is that god does not exist.
An idea of what? If you are saying what I think you are saying, then I would point out that I value truth far more than comfort, and you can't just decide what the truth should be based on your own preferences when there is no evidence in any direction. Therefore, until I see some evidence for a god's existence, I will continue to believe that there probably is no god.
if God did exist, seeing the world in the condition that it is,why does he not a) start a second flood or b) leap out of the "heavens" and show the world that he does indeed exist. Also, c) why does he not immediately punish inherently bad ppl.
It seems as though he either doe not exist, or has no power.
god does not exist like theists thuink he/she does. he exists through the beliefs of people...and do you know y this is? because the church is oppressive and manipulative they play on peoples fear because supposedly you go to hell if u dont believe in god
god does not exist. It is figment of someone (who wrote the fairy tale called the bible)'s imagination. And he told his fairy tale so graphically that people believed it.
We all know that the Bible contradicts itself many times. But you have to acknowledge that it was written by men, not by God Himself. And some of these books weren't even written by first-hand witnesses to the stories. Also, I believe that there are a lot of stories in the Bible that are present only to prove a message. For example, the Bible states that God created the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th day. And upon doing some extensive math and going back through generations, many scholars have found the age of the Earth to be about 6000 years. However, through geology we have found that there are rocks that date back to 4.5 billion years! I believe that stories like the Creation stories are only in the Bible to show us God's power and love toward humans. I'm very skeptical when it comes to the validity of these types of stories.
before i became a ex Christian i knew many people with your view, and many people who would swear every word of the bible was hand written by god, i used to be of the latter, so i know more about arguing with that mind set.
personally i have nothing against religious people, as long as they don't affect my life i wont affect theirs, of course this is a debating site and i apologies i wont be able to come back with a retort for a while, I'm just going to have too look at some things
it's scientifically impossible ever religion is pretty much the same anyways but with a different name for the god for example............... every religion has some die and then come 2 life 3 days later this once created because once a year the sun sinks down a little (dies) and three days later it goes back to normal (resurrection) and u got to think if there is a god before him there was nothing........ so someone of something had to create you can't say he's been here forever because thats impossible
if some one said that in space there was a moon yes because it was proved and i can see it every night and man has landed on it but if i said that there was a small toy that told you that tree's will send you to a wood chipper if you didn't say tree's are cool every day would you believe that no only mental insane people would believe that because there is no evidence to back it up just like every other religion. If you open up your mind think out side the box you will see Jesus was made in the image of man not women because 1000 years ago women had no impotence and every pic of Jesus he is not black because 1000 years ago they where all slaves and a god's son can't be a slave no and the people that say that other religens are rong are American look I'm Australian and Atheist so tell me what you think
I would describe myself as an agnostic, which means I don't claim to know anything about the potential existence of God. I haven't been presented with any real evidence either way, so I think that God probably doesn't exist, but we really don't know. It is my prediction that one day there will be scientific proof that there is no God, which will cause the theism rates ti decrease dramatically.
Most people I know who believe in God do so either because they were told to as children, or for an easy answer to the question 'what happens when we die?'
I have conducted numerous research throughout religious texts I can devour as well as archeological evidences looking for something to prove the existence of a God. I have found however, in references that one exists but this reference is made-up, it simply does not substantiate anything that exist in reality, simply put this is what is commonly referred to as fairy-tales. The existence of such being, taking note that the God in argument here is the one argued by theist, I would say no, He does not exist, He is an imaginary friend, invented by the mind, existing only in the mind, and infecting other minds like a virus.
God doesnt exist, every person has its own values and norms. If person want something to reach, he will get it by doing something, not just sitting and waiting for miracle and God.
There is no evidence that god exists. Seeing is believing. If he exists then why doesn't he come down to earth and show himself to us. If he exists then why does he allow millions of innocents to be killed. If he exists and has all these majestic superpowers, then why doesn't he do something about wars. Instead, he, if he exists at all, just sits around and treats the whole thing as an over elaborate joke. If he exists then why doesn't he do something about poverty and suffering. If he exists then he would care and something would be done. Nothing has been done. Therefore not only does he not exist but is also a mass murderer and an implacable nazi sadist. god does not exist. End of story.
I was born and raised in a Muslim family, since childhood I was being taught that there exist one God, who created and controls everything that exist. Basically, since childhood I was being taught monotheism ( like Jews and Christians believe that there exist one God).
Recently, my Mom and my Grand Mom was having a heated argument over some general household issue, at the end of the argument my Mom said "God knows that I'm right" and my Grand Mom replied confidently "yeah, God knows that it's me who is right".
I began to think that my Mom and Grand Mom are from same religion, yet they both have completely different understanding of God ( if they both had same understanding about God there would'nt have been any argument because both of them would obviously realize, who is wrong).
What I'm trying to say here is - the concept of one God is just a concept created by humans. MONOTHEISM IS A CONCEPT, IT'S NOT A REALITY.
The Reality is - there are billions of humans with their billions of understanding about God. In Reality, for humans there are billions of Gods. This proves that Monotheism is only a concept.
My point is that, if monotheism holds no ground in reality than why is this so called God letting such a huge chunk of human population (Jews, Christians, Muslims etc) stay in darkness from such a long time.
According to me the word God is nothing but a drug that gives a temporary relief to the very basic question about our existence - WHERE WE CAME FROM AND WHERE ARE WE GOING AFTER DEATH.
Despite it being a compelling idea, I feel that God does not exist, at least not in any sense that has been portrayed. He has been shown as all-knowing, all-powerful, and many other ways, but no supernatural phenomena have occurred, at least not that we know of. i am not prepared to completely dismiss the idea of supernatural things, but I am mostly convinced that the human idea of 'God' does not exist.
God is not real. Hardcore Christians say that God is good, God is great. But really, if he was real, then this world would be perfect. If he was real, then he would be evil. I remember when I was a Christian, I prayed to him. Every week. Nothing changed. Everything was the same. I prayed for my family. Nothing changed. It's LIFE. Don't say that he create the world. If he did, then he created the galaxy, different planets, stars, etc. I don't think that he would spend all his pitiful time for earth. What was before God? Who made God? Everything has a beginning, but something suddenly appearing doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean that I believe in the Big Bang theory. Maybe the universe was created by something else. Moving on.
If God was real, he is not DOING anything. That means he just sits on the other side waiting and watching people to die so he can evaluate their souls to see if they are good enough.
God is NOT real. Just a figure. Something that is there for people. Like Santa Clause.
Bible is written by people with their own thinking and not messages from God. God does not exist. Try explaining why jesus does not appear to us now, religious people will start talking in circles.
What you theists seem not to get is that the burden of proof is on you, if i claimed that Bigfoot walked through my yard, the burden of proof would be on me to prove that Bigfoot DID walk through my yard, and until then, you would have no reason to believe me, much like your claim that a God exists. Until you show me hard evidence, I have no reason to accept the the existence of God.
Ther is no evidence that there is a god and even if there was after all of the things that have happened to people without intervention from God (if he exsisted) so if he did exist I would not want to believe in him because he would not care for human life and be a retard. A discovery will be made about where heaven "is" and it will not be there and Christians will come up with a different argument "hick accent""he lives in our souls !!" No heaven was in the clouds and now in a retarded dimension theory retarded thing what is next???
Ther is no evidence that there is a god and even if there was after all of the things that have happened to people without intervention from God (if he exsisted) so if he did exist I would not want to believe in him because he would not care for human life and be a retard. A discovery will be made about where heaven "is" and it will not be there and Christians will come up with a different argument "hick accent""he lives in our souls !!" No heaven was in the clouds and now in a retarded dimension theory retarded thing what is next???
