NationStates Jolt Archive

Look what you wrote. First the 'representation of a thing' doesn't exist, and then it does. Your use of existence as equivocal to reality is what is creating the confusion.

Look at what I wrote? A good idea. You should try it too. Your confusion stems from the inability to comprehend what I said.

Look at what I wrote? A good idea. You should try it too. Your confusion stems from the inability to comprehend what I said.
I have edited the post to more clearly point out your total inconsistencies.

You guys are sitting here bickering back and forth on whether or not god exists... here's an Idea instead of super focusing on our little differences like our relegious view points lets focus on what we all want and that is what is good for mankind. If the only way you see it fit to better mankind is through a god then cool better mankind by god, if you don't need a god don't use one, be calm everyone just wants happiness and the more we have people being arrogant enough with someone challenging to convert them the worse off we are. Be united by our similarities not devided by our differences we are all on the human team.

-Avatar

Right. Same thing as before. You haven't pointed out any inconsistencies of mine. I really hate this - maybe you could read the LAST PARAGRAPH of mine you quoted:

When someone talks of whether god exists or not, they are not talking about whether god exists "subjectively" - obviously you could look at it that way - or whether the concept of god exists - obviously, or else we wouldn't be talking about it now would we. I know this, you know this, it's common sense, please lets not digress for semantics.

How about it? No? You enjoy pointless discussions and wordplay where you get to show off your superiority (earned from a philosophy or metaphysics course or two)? Fine then.

First the 'representation of a thing' doesn't exist as representative the thing it represents

What? I never wrote that. Straw man. It exists as a representation, I never said a representation doesn't exist, only that a representation and the thing being represented are two different things. Is that so hard? For example, the Mona Lisa is a painting. It is a painting of a woman. Does Mona Lisa, the woman, live in the Louvre and wear that same smile 24 hours every day? No. Different.

and then it does exist as a concept,

Yes, concepts can be said to exist. But I was not using the word in that manner, was I? No. That was again my point. There are several definitions to every word, I was using definition #1.


Your use of existence as equivocal to reality is what is creating the confusion.

No, your philosophic digressions are whats confusing. Look, if I'm asking you something like, "is there a bar in town" - I.E, does there exist a bar, within this town - do you typically answer "yes. it exists in your thoughts."? If so, do you often get punched by people? Maybe that's why.

Look, if I'm asking you something like, "is there a bar in town" - I.E, does there exist a bar, within this town - do you typically answer "yes. it exists in your thoughts."?
Now that's the sort of remark I'd love to be able to lay claim to originating...

well this may have been said before but here it goes, it comes down to christains believe in god based on their faith in a higher power, actually just about every religion that i know of believes in a higher being... anyway the ppl that have seen god or have been witnesses to proof generally speaking fall away from their religion because they didn't have the faith to backup what they saw, so ya for the moment they are all about god or whatever but in time they fall away, so without faith being shown or given proof is not worth discussion...

People also used to think the world was flat, that the earth revolved around the sun, and that elves helped make shoes.

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

I agree with the atheism.
God is just a seemingly infallible myth. There is something known as an inner conscience and self confidence that "watches over us". And just that. Else we'd soon have the sky raining kid's wishes like firetrucks and toy trains!! No one grants wishes or makes things happen... 'Cept yourself. Believe in yourself, not in someone who you fear, or supposedly "worship"

Hmm...

Let me set up a scenario. You are on your way to a party at a friend's house. You are excited about this party, and can't wait to get there because you know what a blast it's going to be. Suddenly, as you are driving, something inside of you tells you, "don't go to this party; the cops are going to bust it." Now you start feeling nervous. In the end, you ignore this thought, and show up at the party. You are having a good time, but now start to feel a bit uneasy about that thought of being busted that you had earlier. About an hour later, the cops arrive.

What was it that was telling you not to go? You could argue it was your conscience, but your conscience is what took you to your party. You could argue to some extent morality. What is morality anyway? How is it that somehow, every single person is able to figure out what's moral? No matter what you end up doing, you ALWAYS know in your heart what is moral. How is that? Not everyone is taught that. Yet somehow, we are able to figure out what is really right. It can't be instinct; instinct is something that we always do without thought. It is in our head, therefore it becomes a thought. Besides, humans are numb to most animal instincts. The fact that sometimes we listen to that voice eliminates it as an instinct. Many religious people argue that it is God talking to you, which seems to be the point I am making. Non-religious people will say they do not believe in God. Yet even though they do not believe in God, they hear the same voice at times. They immediately rule out that it is God, yet there is really no other explanation when they deliver this scenario to a Christian.

Here's MY question: How can you explain, scientifically, what it is that is telling you directly what you should do?

Here's MY question: How can you explain, scientifically, what it is that is telling you directly what you should do?

Experience and instinct guiding your subconscious? Coincidence? And my inner voice is reliably wrong, so I'm not sure how that fits in your theory.

I suspect we remember the coincidences and forget the times we had feelings that weren't justified. That we we think these feelings are always right.

What? I never wrote that. Straw man. It exists as a representation, I never said a representation doesn't exist, only that a representation and the thing being represented are two different things. Is that so hard? For example, the Mona Lisa is a painting. It is a painting of a woman. Does Mona Lisa, the woman, live in the Louvre and wear that same smile 24 hours every day? No. Different.
You said, and I quote, that `a representation of [a thing] does not exist simply because "[the thing]" exists.' If it does not exist even as a representation of the thing it represents, then the heck is it? Yes, they are different things: one is real and one isn't, yet both exist.

The painting is not a representation of Mona Lisa; it's a representation of the artist's impression of her.

Yes, concepts can be said to exist. But I was not using the word in that manner, was I? No. That was again my point. There are several definitions to every word, I was using definition #1.
No, not "said to" exist, you said they do exist, and you were right; you used the English language correctly, there. If it's your insistence that the concept of representation does exist in actuality, is in fact real, then why don't you pop one in the mail to me. Post an e-mail address and I'll forward my snail mail to you.

No, your philosophic digressions are whats confusing. Look, if I'm asking you something like, "is there a bar in town" - I.E, does there exist a bar, within this town - do you typically answer "yes. it exists in your thoughts."? If so, do you often get punched by people? Maybe that's why.
Are you talking about hypothetical postulations?

1) So, what, deja vu is God giving you reruns?

2) You do realize that a human is capable of coming to a logical conclusion without actually sitting down and pondering it, right? If your friends tend to have parties that cops show up at, if the cops have been acting up lately, if your friends who're throwing the party have been acting extra stupid lately... your instincts take over for your empty empty brain.

3) Some people think this is a magical creature or something whispering in to your ear. Like a shoulder angel or a cricket. Or a cricket angel.

4) Some attribute this to psychic powers, which are actually more possible and likely than a deity.

Hmm...

Let me set up a scenario. You are on your way to a party at a friend's house. You are excited about this party, and can't wait to get there because you know what a blast it's going to be. Suddenly, as you are driving, something inside of you tells you, "don't go to this party; the cops are going to bust it." Now you start feeling nervous. In the end, you ignore this thought, and show up at the party. You are having a good time, but now start to feel a bit uneasy about that thought of being busted that you had earlier. About an hour later, the cops arrive.

What was it that was telling you not to go?

Reason and experience. Most parties of any worth and size get busted up by the cops.

You could argue it was your conscience, but your conscience is what took you to your party. You could argue to some extent morality. What is morality anyway? How is it that somehow, every single person is able to figure out what's moral?

If this were true there'd be no need for criminal trials, and all juries would agree. It isn't true; there are plenty of times where the culture driven rules of morality are ambiguous or vague.

Besides, humans are numb to most animal instincts. The fact that sometimes we listen to that voice eliminates it as an instinct.

As you said "most" there is therefore no elimination - you've just admitted that there must be some animal instincts we DO listen to.

Yet even though they do not believe in God, they hear the same voice at times.

How do you know that it's the "same" voice?

Here's MY question: How can you explain, scientifically, what it is that is telling you directly what you should do?

Myself. No science needed. I don't doubt myself and start thinking that my own thoughts are some sort of message from another world. Do you? I hope you don't.

If you hear voices in your head, and you SERIOUSLY THINK that they come from some external source - be it God or aliens - unless you're the Pope you're either lying or evil (in Catholicism), or unless you're a Prophet (in Islam), insane (in law) or schizophrenic (in psychology).

Simple thread killer.

Seriously prove that God doesn't exist. No philosophy, prove with science that God is not real. It cannot be done anymore than proving with science that God is real. As proof is derrived from science and mathematics, then proof of the existance, or non-existance, of God is impossible.

2) You do realize that a human is capable of coming to a logical conclusion without actually sitting down and pondering it, right? If your friends tend to have parties that cops show up at, if the cops have been acting up lately, if your friends who're throwing the party have been acting extra stupid lately... your instincts take over for your empty empty brain.
Instinct = logic?

You said, and I quote, that `a representation of [a thing] does not exist simply because "[the thing]" exists.' If it does not exist even as a representation of the thing it represents, then the heck is it? Yes, they are different things: one is real and one isn't, yet both exist.

:headbang:

I was saying that a representation's existence does not hinge on the existence of the thing being represented.

The painting is not a representation of Mona Lisa; it's a representation of the artist's impression of her.

Do you EVER address anything directly or do you always dodge questions to split hairs?


No, not "said to" exist, you said they do exist, and you were right; you used the English language correctly, there. If it's your insistence that the concept of representation does exist in actuality, is in fact real, then why don't you pop one in the mail to me. Post an e-mail address and I'll forward my snail mail to you.


Now you are confusing "real" with "tangible."

Are you talking about hypothetical postulations?

...

Yes. No. What does it matter, you'll ignore what I write anyway? I think from now on I will do the same to you since I feel like I'm wasting great amounts of energy here for no other reason than indulging your philosophic pedantry.

Simple thread killer.

Seriously prove that God doesn't exist. No philosophy, prove with science that God is not real. It cannot be done anymore than proving with science that God is real. As proof is derrived from science and mathematics, then proof of the existance, or non-existance, of God is impossible.You can't prove a negative. It's like asking you to prove that my pet wolf doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the people who say "There is a God."

Simple thread killer.

Seriously prove that God doesn't exist. No philosophy, prove with science that God is not real. It cannot be done anymore than proving with science that God is real. As proof is derrived from science and mathematics, then proof of the existance, or non-existance, of God is impossible.

Even though the burden of proof lies on whoever is making the positive statement EG: god is real

heres all the science you need

1 i cant see god
2 i cant touch god
3 i cant taste god
4 i cant hear god
5 i cant smell god

It doesnt even require any fancy math

Even though the burden of proof lies on whoever is making the positive statement EG: god is real

heres all the science you need

1 i cant see god
2 i cant touch god
3 i cant taste god
4 i cant hear god
5 i cant smell god

It doesnt even require any fancy mathI can't see, touch, taste, hear, or smell black holes, yet I'm fairly certain they exist.

I can't see, touch, taste, hear, or smell black holes, yet I'm fairly certain they exist.
As another example, I've never seen Tajikistan, and at the moment can't taste, touch, hear, see, or smell it. Yet there are many reports of its existence, and I believe them.

The Existence of God cannot and should not be proven. Here's my explanation.

Our senses distort our perception of reality. One "truth" to me may not be the same "truth" to you. Two people can look at the same thing, and see it differently. HOWEVER, this does not mean that there isn't a truth out there. In other words, truth is the way things REALLY are. Truth is what is. In other words, a synonym of 'truth' could be 'reality'. Since everyone's perception of reality is different, that leaves us with two options: either nobody sees reality EXACTLY as it is, or only One Entity can see it exactly as it is. Perhaps that one entity is God? Maybe...I don't really know. But my point is that this is why people have FAITH in religion. I can believe in truth. I can believe that I have the right idea about what truth really is. I believe that God exists. He either does or doesn't. My belief is that in the reality which perhaps none of us really can perceive, there is a God. That doesn't make it true though. It's not True because I believe it, I believe it because it is True (or at least...it could be, and I believe it is). There is no way for me to prove that what I believe to be true really is true. Personally I don't think anything can be proven by one person to another, in religion, science, or anything else. Because even what we see with our eyes is not accurate or absolute perception. If it is at all possible for anyone to actually have a perfect knowledge of something, it would have to simply be a personal conviction of truth. I might personally know something is true. On the first level I might believe that I know something. On a higher level I might know that I know something, but no matter what I know or think I know, I cannot prove it to anyone, nor should I. Everyone should discover truth for themselves.....but there is only one truth out there. Just like Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." This is a truth that HE KNEW. However, it cannot be proven to any of us. We cannot absolutely know that he thinks, unless we are him. But I know that I think, and I know what I think, and that's good enough for me.

i believe in "a god", but not any one of them. if god wants me, he'll tell me. i'm figuring this due to the fact that you make make something outta nothing (life springing from nothing). i just try living my life to the best not giving a rats ass about religion. religion was just the government's way of regaining control of the rebellions (if you dont listen to the king, god'll get ya!)

Instinct = logic?

Instinct is based off of logic. It's not well-developed, sometimes, but its logic.

Fire=Hot, Hot=Owie, Owie=Bad, Put hand in Fire=Bad, is logic.

Party=Kids, Kids=Stupid, Stupid=Cops show up, is also logic.

---

I assure you, if you could be shoved in to a black hole, you would feel it. Assuming the impulse had enough time to reach your brain before you were crushed. We can also see them through various instruments. They're detectable as hell. Magic isn't.

--

String, apply that logic to anything unproven. Like the Easter Bunny. Your argument is just as valid for that. Which is to say, not at all.

Is the factnthat there is something greater than mankind to impossible for you to handle, or does your slef cnetered mind need for you to think you are the most important being in the universe?

... and that's good enough for me.

I notice that this is, ultimately, THE religious argument. Or "It makes me feel good" or "It's too depressing otherwise."

I assure you, if you could be shoved in to a black hole, you would feel it. Assuming the impulse had enough time to reach your brain before you were crushed. We can also see them through various instruments. They're detectable as hell. Magic isn't.Actually, I probably wouldn't feel it. I'd feel it's effects, but not the black hole itself. Similarly, we can only "see" black holes indirectly. Through their output and their effect on the world around them. A lot of people would say the same thing about God.

If god would excist, he would probably excist in Voltaires way...

Is the factnthat there is something greater than mankind to impossible for you to handle, or does your slef cnetered mind need for you to think you are the most important being in the universe?

Last I checked, nobody said that there weren't any aliens running around with bigger brains than us. We just don't accept without evidence that there's magic in the world run by a logically impossible.

Humans are, on average, damned stupid. Even the really smart ones. I, for one, can't do computer programming for my life, even though I'm above average in general mental ability. I mean, hell, we invented the nuke. What's to be proud about that?

We're also not at all important. The Crab Nebula couldn't give a Crab about us. Our planet is going to be fricking absorbed by the sun in some billions of years, when ol' Sol goes Red.

Done proving how stupid humans are yet?

I notice that this is, ultimately, THE religious argument. Or "It makes me feel good" or "It's too depressing otherwise."

My argument was that it cannot be proven. Nor can anything. Science or religion. I'm content with believing because that's all there is to do! If you're not then you'll just go crazy. If you have knowledge of something, it's impossible to prove it!

This is ludicrous. Why is it that so many people like the creator of this thread waste their time by going out of their way to challenge a faith? In what way does it concern them? What value is there in bringing it up in such an already obviously biased manner? Particularly on a forum like this, where the subject of the "stupidity" of Christianity and whatever other faith is incessantly brought up? Furthermore, as we all have heard a million times, the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved by science.

I still don't know what I believe in. However, I find this close-mindedness disturbing.

Actually, I probably wouldn't feel it. I'd feel it's effects, but not the black hole itself. Similarly, we can only "see" black holes indirectly. Through their output and their effect on the world around them. A lot of people would say the same thing about God.

Ever felt the center of the sun?

Just because something would kill doesn't mean its not a physical object. If you were immune to the effects of the sun or a black hole, you could poke the fricking things with your finger. You'd be breaking the laws of physics, but hey. Of course, technically, we -are- the centers of several stars, so, eh.

We can see it just like we can see heat. Indirectly.

You do know that you're not actually in color, right? Colors don't exist as we comprehend them. They're just light waves that our brains differentiate for the sake of use.

This is ludicrous. Why is it that so many people like the creator of this thread waste their time by going out of their way to challenge a faith?

Because they breed and vote.

Also, because it's like a freak show, but you don't feel bad about teasing them, because they did it to themselves.

This is ludicrous. Why is it that so many people like the creator of this thread waste their time by going out of their way to challenge a faith? In what way does it concern them? What value is there in bringing it up in such an already obviously biased manner? Particularly on a forum like this, where the subject of the "stupidity" of Christianity and whatever other faith is incessantly brought up? Furthermore, as we all have heard a million times, the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved by science.
I believe this thread's creator stated elsewhere in the thread that it was created more as a rhetorical question to show that you can't prove God's existence either way.

Okay. I'm going to address one more part of this, and then I'll let it go.
Now you are confusing "real" with "tangible."
realness n. ... not being imaginary but having verifiable existence. Real implies authenticity, genuineness, or factuality: Don't lose the bracelet; it's made of real gold. She showed real sympathy for my predicament. Actual means existing and not merely potential or possible: “rocks, trees... the actual world” (Henry David Thoreau). True implies consistency with fact, reality, or actuality: “It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” (Bertrand Russell). Existent applies to what has life or being: Much of the beluga caviar existent in the world is found near the Caspian Sea. See also synonyms at authentic
Reality and existence are synonymous, and often interchanged, just as destiny and fate are, but they are not identical. The important thing about reality is that it is 'verifiable existence'.
concept n. ... 1 : something conceived in the mind
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances
Imagination is the faculty that allows for the creation of speculations and concepts. They are not verifiable if they are never actualized on paper or by voice. They are not real while they exist only as thought in the imagination.

My argument was that it cannot be proven. Nor can anything. Science or religion. I'm content with believing because that's all there is to do! If you're not then you'll just go crazy. If you have knowledge of something, it's impossible to prove it!

Nothing can be proven.

Thus, you go for whatever makes the most sense based on the evidence available.

There's NO evidence for magic. There IS evidence for what science studies.

If fifty people jump off of a cliff and die, it's more reasonable to assume that falling off that cliff in the manner in which they have is likely to lead to death, rather than the Land of Ice Cream and Spankings.

Religion is going for the LICS.

Nothing can be proven.

Thus, you go for whatever makes the most sense based on the evidence available.

There's NO evidence for magic. There IS evidence for what science studies.

If fifty people jump off of a cliff and die, it's more reasonable to assume that falling off that cliff in the manner in which they have is likely to lead to death, rather than the Land of Ice Cream and Spankings.

Religion is going for the LICS.

You just don't get it. God is not magic. Nobody said He was. It is possible that the world was formed by a higher being.....if you do not investigate that because you think it's impossible or stupid, then you are a horrible scientist, and are not being very intelectual!

I do not believe there is such an entity as God. I interpret the Bible in a strickly metaphorical sense, and I furthermore appreciate the fact that Jesus was preaching to premodern Roman Citizens living in the Fertile Crescent and therefore had to communicate in a manner they would understand (the Lord, the Shepherd, Sowing of Seeds, etc).

Thus put together, the concept of the deity, whether it be through Monotheism or Polytheism, represents mankinds best attempt to grasp that which is infinitely beyond our meager comprehension. The universe around us is nearly 100% mystery, from the bewildering cosmos to the secrets hidden within a single atomic nucleus. We will never truly understand GOD, because GOD encompasses that beyond which nothing further can be conceived.

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.
So when was the last time you walked on Water aye?
Or roze(sp) from the dead?

You couldnt prove he dosent exist and by saying
"look ive found no evidence of his existence that means he dosent exist".
All that proves is he is/can hide himself from mere Mortals.

So therfore he does exist!

I dont think you can conclusively prove the existence of God, but with the knowledge that mankind pocesses at this particular juncture in time i think that the existence of a higher creator being (call it God, Allah, or Aliens from an alternate dimension...)
For example, the Big Bang theory has great gaps in it. The theory is adequate for explaining the development of the early universe but it falls apart as it apppproaches time zero. No scientist has as of yet been able to offer a coherent and logical explanation for what initiated the Big Bang, or where the early condensed matter and energy came from.
Another example is evolution. This is a commonly excepted scientific theory, but it too has flaws. The driving forces behind evolution are mutation and natural selection. Now the first monocellular bacterial life appeared on this planet about 1.2 billion years ago. Now given the average rate of mutation in a species, and the fact that over 99.999% of all mutations are disadvantageous, and thus not condusive to natural selection, most scientists will conced that there wasnt enough time to proceed from single celled organisms to complex, sentient beings with helix neclueotides of deoxyribose neucleaic acid. and this timeline doesnt account for the five massive extinctions that have occurred in earths history (the permian extinction killed nearly all life on the planet for example.)
So i think that its safe to say that we dont understand the history of our origins, and that the idea of a god is one of thge best and most sensible ideas that we have at the moment.

First of all, I would just like to say, I love answering religious threads at 1 AM on a school night. Second of all, before I start, I would like to say that I like individuality and refuse to classify myself as any religion. Ok, that being said, I'll give my 2 cents on the subject that is God (or lack there of)

Alright, I'll begin by saying that to believe in God is to have faith. Faith is to believe without any proof. That being the case there is no proof that God exists.

Now, when ever I say the aforementioned reasoning to a Christian peer of mine, she (or he) is bound to say something around the lines of "you can't see air, but you know it exists." Whenever someone says that, I laugh. First of all, I can't see air because air is so tiny I CAN'T see it with the naked human eye, but I know what makes up air thanks to human scientific advances. However, I obviously (from what Christians say about God being 'huge' and 'greater than all understanding') can't put God under a microscope to figure out what makes him up. Thus, that comparison is illogical, and I suggest that people don't use it because it makes you, and your god, seem silly. Also, you say God created everything, and all I'm saying is air let's me breath.

Second, I would like to address the probability of the creation of something from nothing (Big Bang, spontaneous creation, whatever you want to call it) though regrettably I didn't quote the number, and at 1 AM I don't feel like it. Just know that it seems impossible. Anyway, there are a few things I would like to say about this. First, just because it doesn't seem like it can happen, it doesn't mean that it can't. I mean, personally, given the choice between spontaneous generation of life and the powers of some mystical entity that I've never know, the spontaneous generation seems more logical than the religious one, after you get rid of all the deciding names. Also, I would like to point out that, in my experience anyway, it seems the people that use this explanation think most of science is woo-ha, but they believe mathematicians and scientists when they give them random statistics? Seems a little contradictory if you ask me. So, if you use this explanation, it's obvious in order for it to have any credibility, you have to believe science, and not pick and choice. But, by believing science it proves that God did not create life and therefore there is no need to be giving this explanation in the first place.

Now, aside from that little 'logic lesson', I'll give some personal responses as well.

God means religion obviously. Religion gives people validity to do the things they want and it makes them feel safe. For example, a man comes into power and says he wants to rage war. People would think he's nuts. But if a religious man were to have power and say that God has willed it, and then he recites a few vaguely connected verses from the Bible, suddenly, the war if worth fighting because 'God is behind his children', but what about his other children? This brings me to my next point.

Why is the God that's portrayed in the Christian belief so cruel, mean and dare I say illogical? Think about it, God supposedly created Adam and Eve and then put them in Eden. He gave them everything that they wanted but tells them not to eat from a certain tree. And, lo and behold, they eat a bad apple and God kicks 'em out. To me, it raises some questions. 1) Why would God want his 'children' to be left out in Eden so unprepared (read: Why didn't God want Adam and Eve to be smart enough to realize the difference between a good thing and a bad thing)? 2) Why did God want them to be good little 'children' (by not giving them a perception of good and evil, they were bound to be gullible to pretty much anything and everything)? 3) If God is all knowing, why did he make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the first place? More over, if he knew that Adam and Eve would fall for Lucifer's deceptions even before he created Adam and Eve, why create them only to get angry with them for doing something you knew they were going to do, and cast them out? Going even farther back, if an angel is going to rebel against God, taint his 'greatest creation', cause 'ungodliness' in the world to come and then ultimately fall for his deeds, why did God even bother to create Lucifer? ALL of 'this' (if I'm going to be my 'religious' persona for a moment) could have been avoided if God wanted it to. But, he obviously didn't. Even if God DOES exist, why would you want to worship a deity who (by certain Christian beliefs and versions, again) single handedly gave you all of the pain and suffering that you went through. Honestly, I don't understand the point of giving a creature free will but not knowledge. If God is as all knowing as people say he is, he should have seen that little blunder coming and could have prevented it. Now, to me, that brings up a good point...

Why does Christianity seem like a fairy tale? A side of good and a side of evil? According to what my Christian peers are telling me, God could have avoided it, but why didn't he? Why this whole drawn out 'war'? There's no need for a 'war'. All he needed to do was not create Lucifer and any other rebel angels. Easy as that. But, it seems a bit odd for God to create man and give him Paradise. Only to take it away after knowing Man would be tempted and since God didn't give him knowledge to think for himself, was ultimately tempted and ate the apple. But then after millions of years in religious turmoil and death, God comes back, gets rid of the evil and gives us the paradise we could have had in the very beginning without any of that crap in the middle. Now, either there is no God, or God can get bored too.

Alright, now that I'm done basically proving that God doesn't exist I would like to say that I think that personal faith is a good thing. Personal faith being a belief (such as your version of God or something similar) that helps strengthen your goals without clouding judgment. And example would be treating everyone the same, no matter what their 'transgressions' maybe. An example of a faith that's not personal is, treating certain people the same, and with kindness, but demoralizing others because of what you believe to be 'wrong' (e.g. the 'homosexuality' issue seems to be used frequently, so I'll use it here as well) and basically causing them to feel like less of a person.

All I'm saying is this: Faith, whether in God or the fact there isn't a God, is good because it gives you a sense of self. But, when you try to force your belief onto others and, worse of all, using your faith as an excuse to play executioner and master of another's life than I think you should rethink your 'faith'.

In other words, once we're able to prove everything else in life, from the reason we're here to why Michael Jackson went white, then, and only then, will we ever be able to prove whether God exists or not, because we'll need every single peice of fact to know God ( if there is one)

( PN: Please excuse spelling and grammar mistakes in this post. I'm tired and can barely keep my eyes open. Also, I would just like to say, for the record, I'm only a high school freshman, so, if I sound under educated...well, then I would like to have a chance to prove other wise. Also, I would also like to state that I like to believe there is a God, and in this post I was merely stating some inconsistencies that I noticed, so please do not take offense to any of the things that I said. But, instead, take this as a learning experience. Also, sorry about the long post...I tend to get into it. :p Yeah...I'm going to sleep now. Good Night everyone)

I don't think anyone's given this proof yet, so I'll post it. This does not attempt to prove any specific God exists - just that a god exists.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57

Minimum Criteria for Godhood:
- Must exist
- Must be unique
- Must be self-caused
- Must be the cause of everything else

Assumptions:
1) The universe exists (this is to dispel Hume-level scepticism) - even if I'm an illusion watching an illusion, then something exists.
2) Something can be self-caused (as in the case of the basic quantum particles) or externally caused (as in the case of most things), but never both.
3) If A is a component of B, then B is composite. Furthermore, a composite cannot cause one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place, and therefore cannot be self-caused.

Argument:
The universe, being made up of everything that exists, is composite, and therefore cannot cause any of its components to come into being. Likewise it cannot be self-caused.
Therefore, there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe, likewise, it must be a unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.

The object, G, therefore fulfills the minimum criteria for godhood.

I don't think anyone's given this proof yet, so I'll post it. This does not attempt to prove any specific God exists - just that a god exists.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57

Minimum Criteria for Godhood:
- Must exist
- Must be unique
- Must be self-caused
- Must be the cause of everything else

Assumptions:
1) The universe exists (this is to dispel Hume-level scepticism) - even if I'm an illusion watching an illusion, then something exists.
2) Something can be self-caused (as in the case of the basic quantum particles) or externally caused (as in the case of most things), but never both.
3) If A is a component of B, then B is composite. Furthermore, a composite cannot cause one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place, and therefore cannot be self-caused.

Argument:
The universe, being made up of everything that exists, is composite, and therefore cannot cause any of its components to come into being. Likewise it cannot be self-caused.
Therefore, there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe, likewise, it must be a unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.

The object, G, therefore fulfills the minimum criteria for godhood.
That's very good. :)

It ought to be - it was written by a guy with a Ph.D. in Mathematics.

Well, I'm not particularly impressed by any of these so called proofs of the existence or non existence of God. Surely the important thing is to realise that we are unable to prove the existence of God in terms of either an inductive or deductive argument, and thus are unable to prove his existence in any way. This of course means that the atheist is equally as justified as the theist in his position, but it doesn't mean that it is as reasonable a position. This of course is a statement of faith, and one that may not be shared, but it would seem that the theistic hypothesis is the best explanation for this type of universe. It is crucial not to fall into ascribing God the role whereby he explains what science does not, but rather a continuing sustaining and immanent role, divinely guiding the world to its goal. Indeed, this would fit, for example, with evolutionary theory - according to Darwinism, evolution is due to random mutations which confer advantage on those members of a species. Now, is it just random or is it in accordance with the divine purpose that creatures should gradually have grown in complexity over time. It could be argued that this evolution shows that God has set up the laws of natural selection in order that personal beings may evolve, in a world in which chance and creaturely freedom is an intrinsi reality. Of course, this cannot be proved in the strict sense of the word, but at least it shows that belief in God is reasonable, not irrational.

Inductive and deductive proofs of the existence of God must stop. By thinking that reason and the fallacious human intellect can prove or disprove the existence of the transcendent by pithy arguments, we are acting in arrogance and stupidity, in darkness instead of light.

It ought to be - it was written by a guy with a Ph.D. in Mathematics.

I disagree - it is possibly the worst proof of the existence of God I have ever seen. Without going into too much detail, the guy opens his "proof" with a statement concerning the minimum criteria for Godhood. Now, how can we possibly know this? Furthermore, one of his criteria is "god must exist!" In his initial criteria he assumes that God exists before the proof has been made. In the end, it boils down to "if God exists, then he exists" or "if God doesn't exist, then he doesn't exists." If you think that it is a necessary part of God that he must exist, then, unless you're a neoplatonist or something of that description, this is incorrect. Existence is not an attribute that something can either have or lack, and therefore cannot be one of the necessary attributes of God. No, this proof is not clever - it is the ultimate fallacy.

The question is not whether "God" exists or not, but whether you should believe in "God".

To explain this statement, I present to you two postulates. The first of which is not mine, and the other of which is mine (until another, more prominient source predating myself can be indentified).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postulate one
Basic assumptions:
1) We are dealing with the Christian God
2) We accept the Bible as the basic cannon source of information for said God (not an invitation for bible discussion)
3) No sins have been committed to bar entry into (theoritical) Heaven

As stated in the Bible, all non-belivers shall burn in hell for all eternity. Those who believe in God shall have the oportunity to enter heaven for all eternity. Let it be accepted that hell is an unpleasant place and that heaven is as nice as it is said to be. Now I present the dilemma of the non-believer.

Should a non-believer "change faith" and believe in the existence of God?

If the non-believer does not believe in God, and there is no God, then they shall hang in limbo or become a null existence after death (or whatever happens to non-believers in the abscence of God). However, if there is a a God, and they continued to not believe, then they are destined for an eternity of pain and suffering.

If a non-believer decides to "pick-up" the faith, and there is a God, then they are afforded the opportunity to enter heaven (for the sake of argument, we assume that they have not sinned in other ways). However, if there is no God, then the non-believer-turned-faithful is destined to the fate of nulled existence after death.

By comparing the two outcomes, one can easily see that believing in God has a far greater payoff than not believing. One is essentially afforded three choices: burn in hell for eternity, nulled existence, enjoy heaven for eternity. Believing in God eliminates the most unpleasant of possibilities, making the chances of eternal bliss at least 50/50.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postulate two
Basic assumptions:
1) There is A "God"
2) Said "God" is has a "traditional" heaven and hell
3) The parameters for entering heaven or hell involve believing in said "God"
4) Conditions for entering heaven also include adhereing to additional parameters set forth by said "God" (likewise, conditions for entering hell involve violating set parameters)

This postualte is based off of the first. Should a non-believer convert to a faith? Here, a potentially faithful is faced with a daunting dilemma, which faith should they convert to. With so many conflicting faiths, it is more than likely that the choosen faith would not be the correct one. In addition to having choosen the wrong faith, and thus doomed to suffer an eternity in hell for the wrong choice, one would also have to had adhered to the rules of the faith. Thereby compounding their error, potentially increasing the punishment (although it can't really get much worse than an eternity of pain and suffering). Thus, by converting to a faith, a non-believer faces the distinct possibility of a lifetime of servitude to the wrong God (thereby being doomed to hell), or, a lifetime of servitude to a non-existant God (thereby having wasted all the resources and energy expended in pursuit of heaven).

Therefore, I claim that despite the apparent mathematical advantage to believing in the Christian God, one still faces the overwhelming statistical probability that the chosen God is the wrong God and will therefore be doomed to spend an eternity in hell AFTER a lifetime of fruitless effort.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short, one should not believe in any God, because the chances of believing in the correct God is so small that it is not worth the lifetime of effort and dedication required to gain entry into a heaven that you are not even sure exists.

As an atheist, the side of the argument that I shall put forward is rather weird. Anyway, on with it.

Using the logic:
"I think, therefore I am."

I'm thinking about god right now. Therefore I am god right now!

That wins ya all.
:sniper:

You say that God defies physics, yet also say that the laws of physics (of all forms) change, get disproven, broken and bent frequently. Maybe we simply havent found laws of physics capable of describing God.

Regardless of whether your belief lies in the existence of God or the non-existence of God, both require a certain amount of faith.

I don't think anyone's given this proof yet, so I'll post it. This does not attempt to prove any specific God exists - just that a god exists.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57

Minimum Criteria for Godhood:
- Must exist
- Must be unique
- Must be self-caused
- Must be the cause of everything else

Assumptions:
1) The universe exists (this is to dispel Hume-level scepticism) - even if I'm an illusion watching an illusion, then something exists.
2) Something can be self-caused (as in the case of the basic quantum particles) or externally caused (as in the case of most things), but never both.
3) If A is a component of B, then B is composite. Furthermore, a composite cannot cause one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place, and therefore cannot be self-caused.

Argument:
The universe, being made up of everything that exists, is composite, and therefore cannot cause any of its components to come into being. Likewise it cannot be self-caused.
Therefore, there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe, likewise, it must be a unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.

The object, G, therefore fulfills the minimum criteria for godhood.

Intresting argumentation, however, as I se it, it fails on premiss
2) - "something can be self-caused (as in the case of the basic quantum particles) or externally caused (as in the case of most things), but never both."
We cannot for certain say that this is true.

I would also be very careful using logics to "prove" the excistans of god since the conclusion never can be tested.

Do you walk around with a wooden stake and a gun loaded with silver just in case?

Yes .... yes I do .... damn vampires .... :shiftyeyes:

Right, I'll have a shot at proving god exists. Although you will need to shift your perception of what god is.

All man made religions are pure fiction, even the one I am about to suggest. It is not possible for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god to live in the same universe as us. Too big, too complex and totally not on the same wavelength as us humans. God did not evolve, so doen't have the same mental makeup as us and is infinitely more complex so we are as bacteria in it's eyes.

I suggest that god is the universe itself, not a sentient creature but a large blob of space-time stuff that came from nothing and whose sum is exactly nothing. Positive and negative, that exactly cancels out, but because of the big-bang still has structure.

As the universe expanded an grew order was formed out of chaos, as the entropic arrow got longer, and against the odds, more complexity grew. At the moment the most complex object in the known universe is the human brain.

If there is a purpose to existance then it must be the continuing accumulation of knowledge and complexity, until sometime in the future, in a concentrated soup of elementary particles, there exists a being of ultimate complexity. Built from the matter of galaxies and black holes. Absolutely unfathomable by our standards, but we would still be one of it's ancestors.

What would be the purpose of such a being? To get a girl? Find a good job?

Nope, it would be to reassemble the universe in such away it destroys itself but without cancelling everything out. So that order will prevail and the cycle will continue anew.

Or not!

First of all I did not read the whole thread so I am sorry before if I am repeating what someone has already said.

Of course god exists. God has existed in every culture since humans coould orally communicate with each other. It is important to note that god is represented differently in each culture, but that fundamentally god exists in everyone.

So why does god exists in every culture? Simply god has been used to explain something that is unkown, god is also a means of justification of one's actions and feelings that otherwise cannot be explained.

God will always exists since humans cannot understand and explain everything, God simply represents the unknown.
Monsters exist in every culture. Show me a monster.

Hmm...

Let me set up a scenario. You are on your way to a party at a friend's house. You are excited about this party, and can't wait to get there because you know what a blast it's going to be. Suddenly, as you are driving, something inside of you tells you, "don't go to this party; the cops are going to bust it." Now you start feeling nervous. In the end, you ignore this thought, and show up at the party. You are having a good time, but now start to feel a bit uneasy about that thought of being busted that you had earlier. About an hour later, the cops arrive.

What was it that was telling you not to go? You could argue it was your conscience, but your conscience is what took you to your party. You could argue to some extent morality. What is morality anyway? How is it that somehow, every single person is able to figure out what's moral? No matter what you end up doing, you ALWAYS know in your heart what is moral. How is that? Not everyone is taught that. Yet somehow, we are able to figure out what is really right. It can't be instinct; instinct is something that we always do without thought. It is in our head, therefore it becomes a thought. Besides, humans are numb to most animal instincts. The fact that sometimes we listen to that voice eliminates it as an instinct. Many religious people argue that it is God talking to you, which seems to be the point I am making. Non-religious people will say they do not believe in God. Yet even though they do not believe in God, they hear the same voice at times. They immediately rule out that it is God, yet there is really no other explanation when they deliver this scenario to a Christian.

Here's MY question: How can you explain, scientifically, what it is that is telling you directly what you should do?
On your first point about morality. There are very few morals that are found in most cultures. Most are culturally specific. The ones that are common are rooted in empathy, which can be found in chimps and other higher primates. It's an evolution thing, not a god thing.

On your second point about what told you not to go to the party. It was just a part of your unconscious mind putting two and two together. People get intuitions like this all the time. Most of the times they're wrong, and you forget them. Sometimes they're right and you tend to remember those. Just a flaw in the standard human pattern recognition software.

Simple thread killer.

Seriously prove that God doesn't exist. No philosophy, prove with science that God is not real. It cannot be done anymore than proving with science that God is real. As proof is derrived from science and mathematics, then proof of the existance, or non-existance, of God is impossible.
In many cases proof of existance, or at least evidence should be possible. Most religions claim god wants people to know him and follow his rules. If he wants this he would leave evidence of his existance and clear indications as to which rules he wants followed. Where's this evidence?

I wonder how you can prove something that is completely impossible to understand with something as primitive as the human mind. That's not very logic.

Maybe there's a "god", maybe not, who knows. But I seriously doubt anyone can definitely prove that it exists.

Though if there is a "god", and this "thing" is an actual sentinent "being", then it has to come from somewhere, it would -technically- need a homeplanet, etc, which means, there may be more than just one anyway.

I can't see, touch, taste, hear, or smell black holes, yet I'm fairly certain they exist.
You can observe their effects on matter falling into them. All you need is a strong enough telescope. Yet no telescope has been able to see evidence of god.

Is the factnthat there is something greater than mankind to impossible for you to handle, or does your slef cnetered mind need for you to think you are the most important being in the universe?
My rational mind requires evidence of something so unusual and unbeleivable. I guess you just beleive everything with no evidence then?

how many hitch hikers guide quotes are there on this message board? although i do agree with the concept and i myself dont believe in god. there is no animal such as the babel fish. although i wish there was. would makem a german in school a hell of a lot easier

Actually, I probably wouldn't feel it. I'd feel it's effects, but not the black hole itself. Similarly, we can only "see" black holes indirectly. Through their output and their effect on the world around them. A lot of people would say the same thing about God.
They are wrong. Many things can only be detected through their effects on other objects, like gravity. Show me something effected by god that can't be explained by simpler means.

also if there is a god then why would he need belief? as a higher being why would he need belief. or as in discworld books, they use belief as a source of food. but to need an energy source in any sence of the word would hint at a physical body.

This is ludicrous. Why is it that so many people like the creator of this thread waste their time by going out of their way to challenge a faith? In what way does it concern them? What value is there in bringing it up in such an already obviously biased manner? Particularly on a forum like this, where the subject of the "stupidity" of Christianity and whatever other faith is incessantly brought up? Furthermore, as we all have heard a million times, the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved by science.

I still don't know what I believe in. However, I find this close-mindedness disturbing.
Who's closed mindedness? That of the theists who absolutely refuse to entertain the possibility that there's no supreme being?

I disagree - it is possibly the worst proof of the existence of God I have ever seen. Without going into too much detail, the guy opens his "proof" with a statement concerning the minimum criteria for Godhood. Now, how can we possibly know this? Furthermore, one of his criteria is "god must exist!" In his initial criteria he assumes that God exists before the proof has been made. In the end, it boils down to "if God exists, then he exists" or "if God doesn't exist, then he doesn't exists." If you think that it is a necessary part of God that he must exist, then, unless you're a neoplatonist or something of that description, this is incorrect. Existence is not an attribute that something can either have or lack, and therefore cannot be one of the necessary attributes of God. No, this proof is not clever - it is the ultimate fallacy.
Yes... one of the criteria for proving that god exists is that god exists. :rolleyes:

Monsters exist in every culture. Show me a monster.
*points to Saddam Hussein*

So when was the last time you walked on Water aye?
Or roze(sp) from the dead?

You couldnt prove he dosent exist and by saying
"look ive found no evidence of his existence that means he dosent exist".
All that proves is he is/can hide himself from mere Mortals.

So therfore he does exist!
Dragons and unicorns hide pretty well too. Wanna buy some dragon repellant? TG me. I'll give you a reasonable price.

I dont think you can conclusively prove the existence of God, but with the knowledge that mankind pocesses at this particular juncture in time i think that the existence of a higher creator being (call it God, Allah, or Aliens from an alternate dimension...)
For example, the Big Bang theory has great gaps in it. The theory is adequate for explaining the development of the early universe but it falls apart as it apppproaches time zero. No scientist has as of yet been able to offer a coherent and logical explanation for what initiated the Big Bang, or where the early condensed matter and energy came from.
Another example is evolution. This is a commonly excepted scientific theory, but it too has flaws. The driving forces behind evolution are mutation and natural selection. Now the first monocellular bacterial life appeared on this planet about 1.2 billion years ago. Now given the average rate of mutation in a species, and the fact that over 99.999% of all mutations are disadvantageous, and thus not condusive to natural selection, most scientists will conced that there wasnt enough time to proceed from single celled organisms to complex, sentient beings with helix neclueotides of deoxyribose neucleaic acid. and this timeline doesnt account for the five massive extinctions that have occurred in earths history (the permian extinction killed nearly all life on the planet for example.)
So i think that its safe to say that we dont understand the history of our origins, and that the idea of a god is one of thge best and most sensible ideas that we have at the moment.
God is not a scientific idea because it doesn't test too well. What predictions can you make if you attribute everything to god? Evolution makes predictions, and Lo and Behold, they come true!

So when was the last time you walked on Water aye?
Or roze(sp) from the dead?
A-roze, by any other name. :)

Not proving non-existence does not prove existence. ;-)

one cannot prove that god exists, because believing in something is an act of faith. faith is the irrational belief in something that one has no proof of. Example I do not believe in evolution, but so far, since the 1850's more than 1 million experiments have been done, and their conclusions all back up evolution. Therefore, i believe that evolution adequitely explains the data, however, if more credible data appears that discredits evolution, than it, as a theory is disproved, and I will no longer believe that evolution adequitely explains the data. God is similiar. I believe in the possiblility of God's existence, but because I have seen no data that proves or disproves God, I believe that there is no explanation for the data, whatever data that may be.

God is not a scientific idea because it doesn't test too well. What predictions can you make if you attribute everything to god? Evolution makes predictions, and Lo and Behold, they come true!

Evolution & belief in God are not necessarily opposing views... I know one to be true & I suspect the other is also true...

I haven't read all the backlog as to be honest I have better things to do with my time, but the arguement seems futile. You can't show proof that God exists, you either know in your heart that He is there, or you don't and your life knows only a fraction of the joy it could. *shurgs*

I don't think anyone's given this proof yet, so I'll post it. This does not attempt to prove any specific God exists - just that a god exists.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57

Minimum Criteria for Godhood:
- Must exist
- Must be unique
- Must be self-caused
- Must be the cause of everything else

Assumptions:
1) The universe exists (this is to dispel Hume-level scepticism) - even if I'm an illusion watching an illusion, then something exists.
2) Something can be self-caused (as in the case of the basic quantum particles) or externally caused (as in the case of most things), but never both.
3) If A is a component of B, then B is composite. Furthermore, a composite cannot cause one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place, and therefore cannot be self-caused.

Argument:
The universe, being made up of everything that exists, is composite, and therefore cannot cause any of its components to come into being. Likewise it cannot be self-caused.
Therefore, there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe, likewise, it must be a unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.

The object, G, therefore fulfills the minimum criteria for godhood.
What if the universe was always there? What if the thing that caused the universe is not a living being, but some grand force of nature beyond time and space? I think your proof fails.

What if the thing that caused the universe is not a living being, but some grand force of nature beyond time and space?

what if that grand force was god?

there is no "god" as of yet...

Yeah I'm not accepting that proof.

Must exist
- Must be unique
- Must be self-caused
- Must be the cause of everything else

Well... uh, whether God exists or not is the point of the argument... it should be the conclusion, not the premise. If you're going to assume God exists as part of your proof of God's existing, thats just circular reasoning.

As for the others... well, who said unique? Seems to me plenty of gods co-existed with other gods in mythology. And they were still gods. Self-caused? Again, who says? If God can be self-caused, why not the universe?

The cause of everything else - fine. But if we already disagree at this point there is no point in the rest of the argument based on such premises.

haven't read all the backlog as to be honest I have better things to do with my time, but the arguement seems futile. You can't show proof that God exists, you either know in your heart that He is there, or you don't and your life knows only a fraction of the joy it could. *shurgs*

Ah yes, the "people who believe in God are happier" viewpoint. Like those happy joy-joy terrorist types! I just cannot conceive of knowing so much joy as they do.

You're right that the argument is futile, and you're wrong if you assume others must be less happy if they don't believe as you do. That kind of shit pisses me off. Don't do it.

Confucious say, "Prove God exists by Prove God don't."

You say that God defies physics, yet also say that the laws of physics (of all forms) change, get disproven, broken and bent frequently. Maybe we simply havent found laws of physics capable of describing God.
Maybe we haven't found the laws of physics capable of describing dragons, leprechauns and fairies either, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Regardless of whether your belief lies in the existence of God or the non-existence of God, both require a certain amount of faith.
Asking for evidnece doesn't require faith. I just don't beleive in such things without evidence.

Well... uh, whether God exists or not is the point of the argument... it should be the conclusion, not the premise. If you're going to assume God exists as part of your proof of God's existing, thats just circular reasoning.
Those aren't the premises, they are the criteria (i.e. a statement that outlines the thing being proved).

I disagree - it is possibly the worst proof of the existence of God I have ever seen. Without going into too much detail, the guy opens his "proof" with a statement concerning the minimum criteria for Godhood. Now, how can we possibly know this? Furthermore, one of his criteria is "god must exist!" In his initial criteria he assumes that God exists before the proof has been made. In the end, it boils down to "if God exists, then he exists" or "if God doesn't exist, then he doesn't exists." If you think that it is a necessary part of God that he must exist, then, unless you're a neoplatonist or something of that description, this is incorrect. Existence is not an attribute that something can either have or lack, and therefore cannot be one of the necessary attributes of God. No, this proof is not clever - it is the ultimate fallacy.
You've obviously missed the entire point of the argument, and fallen into a fallicy for your rebuttal. A part of the criteria of being a god is that they must exist - would you agree? If they don't exist, then they're not a god. That is not the argument, just a requisite point.

The argument itself is the bit under the heading "argument" (in case you missed that, that's why I stuck the heading there), wherein it states that a requisite for the universe existing is something to create it, and that thing, whatever it may be, fulfills the criteria for godhood.

Intresting argumentation, however, as I se it, it fails on premiss
2) - "something can be self-caused (as in the case of the basic quantum particles) or externally caused (as in the case of most things), but never both."
We cannot for certain say that this is true.

I would also be very careful using logics to "prove" the excistans of god since the conclusion never can be tested.
This I'll definitely agree to. We cannot be entirely sure that something can be self-caused. However, I do believe we can agree that something can't be both self- and externally caused. ;)

And I agree, the conclusion, based on the knowledge going around today anyway, can't be proven.

What if the universe was always there? What if the thing that caused the universe is not a living being, but some grand force of nature beyond time and space? I think your proof fails.
If the universe was always there, then causality doesn't exist.
If the thing is not living, then it still fulfills the minimum criteria for godhood, which is all the argument says - something did it, and it's godlike.

Now to Santa Barbera:
Well... uh, whether God exists or not is the point of the argument... it should be the conclusion, not the premise. If you're going to assume God exists as part of your proof of God's existing, thats just circular reasoning.
It's not the premise. The argument's premise starts with the assumptions, not the criteria (which you seem to have mislabelled). The criteria merely states what we are trying to find. Therefore, it's not circular reasoning to say that we are trying to find something that exists.

As for the others... well, who said unique? Seems to me plenty of gods co-existed with other gods in mythology. And they were still gods.
I believe the argument appears monotheistic, due to the fact that there tends to be only a single creator deity. In that, that deity is unique.

Self-caused? Again, who says? If God can be self-caused, why not the universe?
You raise an interesting point on the "must God be self-caused?" front. However, for the purposes of the argument, we're trying to find an original cause for everything - and that original cause, therefore, cannot be caused by something else.
And the universe is a composite (as is stated in the argument, which you seem to have missed), while a first-cause-deity must not, if it is going to be self-caused. You would have got this if you'd managed to actually get down to the assumptions.

The cause of everything else - fine. But if we already disagree at this point there is no point in the rest of the argument based on such premises.
Well you obviously haven't read past the minimum criteria for godhood if you:
1) believe it to be the argument, and,
2) have trouble understanding the reasoning behind it.

Oh, and finally, I'd like to thank Willamena for trying to help in a losing battle. ;)

Evolution & belief in God are not necessarily opposing views... I know one to be true & I suspect the other is also true...

I haven't read all the backlog as to be honest I have better things to do with my time, but the arguement seems futile. You can't show proof that God exists, you either know in your heart that He is there, or you don't and your life knows only a fraction of the joy it could. *shurgs*
I was responding to a post that said that god is the best explanation for the existance of the universe and the diversity of life. I was only showing that god is not a good explanation.

what if that grand force was god?
If it's not intelligent it doesn't fit the most common definition of god. I could claim that gods are just pencil erasers, then show you a handfull and thereby prove that gods exist. Sorry, we're talking about a supreme being here, not just some physical law.

Oh, and finally, I'd like to thank Willamena for trying to help in a losing battle. ;)
Oh, heck! If I knew it was a losing battle... ;-)

Oh, heck! If I knew it was a losing battle... ;-)
Can't fight a torrent of stupidity if they don't even bother to read the argument. ;)

Indoctrination: Not just for idiot theists.

Can't fight a torrent of stupidity if they don't even bother to read the argument. ;)

Indoctrination: Not just for idiot theists.
So very true

Can't fight a torrent of stupidity if they don't even bother to read the argument. ;)

Indoctrination: Not just for idiot theists.
Dude, Your "proof" of god didn't even state that god must be a living being. It just said the universe needed a cause. It's not a proof of god, just an attempt to prove something had to cause the universe to come into being. It never addressed whether the cause was a living being, an intelligence. Most people's definition of god includes consciousness and intelligence.

Drunk, a god is just a very powerful entity. You say "most people's", you forget that means "not everyone", and thereby discredit your own argument.

If the universe was always there, then causality doesn't exist.

Explain. How does whether the universe always existed or not have any relevance to whether things have cause.



And the universe is a composite (as is stated in the argument, which you seem to have missed), while a first-cause-deity must not, if it is going to be self-caused. You would have got this if you'd managed to actually get down to the assumptions.

Oh, I read them. They were bunk just like the rest of your philosophical wordplay. You basically said if something is a "composite" it cannot cause any of it's components. Says who? Another unfounded assumption.


Well you obviously haven't read past the minimum criteria for godhood if you:
1) believe it to be the argument, and,
2) have trouble understanding the reasoning behind it.

I guess I assume defininitions and assumptions to be crucial to any argument. Maybe you know different? You probably do. All self-styled philosophers tend to think they know better than everyone else...

Dude, Your "proof" of god didn't even state that god must be a living being. It just said the universe needed a cause. It's not a proof of god, just an attempt to prove something had to cause the universe to come into being. It never addressed whether the cause was a living being, an intelligence. Most people's definition of god includes consciousness and intelligence.
That is stated in the first lines, "not a proof of God, just a god."

Ah yes, the "people who believe in God are happier" viewpoint. Like those happy joy-joy terrorist types! I just cannot conceive of knowing so much joy as they do.

You're right that the argument is futile, and you're wrong if you assume others must be less happy if they don't believe as you do. That kind of shit pisses me off. Don't do it.

Firstly, terrorists, dispite what they say, are not religious... you only need a little common sense, very minor knowledge of the main religious texts or to speak to a handful of real believers to discover that. Please do not confuse those who believe in a loving God and those who believe in murder again.

Secondly, I'm sorry I annoyed you (boy, you must have such a happt life if such a small comment pissed you off! :p ) I'm not saying that in most ways those who don't believe are unhappy... but there are joys you can never know until you open your eyes & your heart. You can chose to ignore that or disbelieve it, but you have no right to tell me not to say it.

Can't fight a torrent of stupidity if they don't even bother to read the argument. ;)

Indoctrination: Not just for idiot theists.

Oh what, so I didn't read the argument because I didn't quote and respond to it?

Another unfounded assumption.

So I must be "indoctrinated" as a result? A "torrent of stupidity?"

Please. :rolleyes:

Explain. How does whether the universe always existed or not have any relevance to whether things have cause.
If one thing doesn't require a cause, then why does anything else? One exception breaks a rule.

Oh, I read them. They were bunk just like the rest of your philosophical wordplay. You basically said if something is a "composite" it cannot cause any of it's components. Says who? Another unfounded assumption.
Ok, try putting yourself together before you exist.
Now do you get it?

I guess I assume defininitions and assumptions to be crucial to any argument. Maybe you know different? You probably do. All self-styled philosophers tend to think they know better than everyone else...
A definition is not an argument. You seem to get the two mixed up in your objections.
And nice attempt at an argumentum ad hominem. ;) You'll find that on wikipedia under logical fallicy.

Oh what, so I didn't read the argument because I didn't quote and respond to it?
If you'd read the argument, you would have got the reasoning behind the definition. Since you didn't, you either didn't read the argument, or didn't bother to think before you posted. I was banking on the former, but you seem to make a very good case for the latter.

Oh, I read them. They were bunk just like the rest of your philosophical wordplay. You basically said if something is a "composite" it cannot cause any of it's components. Says who? Another unfounded assumption.
It's called logic. :)

Unfortunately, people will use a limited logic system to determine "truth" about unknown events such as the early universe or the existence and nature of God where this kind of logic simply cannot apply. Logic derives from observed relationships and not the other way around. One cannot determine outcomes from a misapplied logical system. Moreover, there occurs many kinds of logic systems that aim for specific purposes. For example, Aristotelian logic cannot explain calculus or quantum events. And since the speculations about the early universe involve sub-atomic events, only a quantum logical system can account for quantum events. So...

Even if the world is an illusion, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists. Further, everything that exists does so because of some cause, and the "principle of sufficient reason" states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. Essentially, everything that exists has to have a reason for existing. Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length, starting with "God". All known physical phenomena are composites, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum mechanics. Thus, if A is a component of B, then B is composite, and furthermore a composite cannot be a cause of one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place. One can infer that the universe is a composite of all phenomena. The universe itself, then, cannot bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components. Then, the universe could similarly not be self-caused, since it is caused by the aggregation of its components, and so there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe.

Therefore, G is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.

"Verily existence is a parched ground and the bounty of the Kingdom is a copious rain. The ground of existence shall surely be developed into myrtles of the wisdom of God, for the fragrances of holiness have encompassed the earth, east and west, the glad-tidings of God have successively come from the Kingdom of heaven and the Sun of Truth hath shone forth to all regions with the greatest effulgence. Impart thou the Greatest Name to the ears, so that all may call out among nations: “O Thou Baha’ of the world! O Thou Sun of Pre-existence!” - Abdu’l-Bahá

That is stated in the first lines, "not a proof of God, just a god."
The definition of god in the proof is too lose. NO religion would call that a god. I'm not refering to any specific god, just the commonly understood meaning of what constitutes a god. He only (sort of, it's open to debate) proved a cause. A god implies a being, not just a force or natural law.

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

And I challenge you to prove that he doesn't exist!

Drunk, a god is just a very powerful entity. You say "most people's", you forget that means "not everyone", and thereby discredit your own argument.
Exactly. An Entity is a being. You never established why the cause must be a being. Why not some super force of nature that's not guided by an intelligence?

Firstly, terrorists, dispite what they say, are not religious... you only need a little common sense, very minor knowledge of the main religious texts or to speak to a handful of real believers to discover that. Please do not confuse those who believe in a loving God and those who believe in murder again.

Secondly, I'm sorry I annoyed you (boy, you must have such a happt life if such a small comment pissed you off! :p ) I'm not saying that in most ways those who don't believe are unhappy... but there are joys you can never know until you open your eyes & your heart. You can chose to ignore that or disbelieve it, but you have no right to tell me not to say it.
Why are they not religious ? they are highly so. THEY are doing what THEY think god told them to do just as you are (and in you I mean the rest of the religion) what makes their interpretation any worse then yours?

Firstly, terrorists, dispite what they say, are not religious... you only need a little common sense, very minor knowledge of the main religious texts or to speak to a handful of real believers to discover that. Please do not confuse those who believe in a loving God and those who believe in murder again.

Secondly, I'm sorry I annoyed you (boy, you must have such a happt life if such a small comment pissed you off! :p ) I'm not saying that in most ways those who don't believe are unhappy... but there are joys you can never know until you open your eyes & your heart. You can chose to ignore that or disbelieve it, but you have no right to tell me not to say it.
Some people beleive in a jealous, vengefull god that hates. They are just as religious as those who beleive in a loving god.

Drunk, a few things. The definition is loose for a reason - it's the minimum criteria for godhood. Add any seasoning you like on top of that to form your deity of choice.

Secondly, an entity is not necessarily a being - just something that exists.

The definition of god in the proof is too lose. NO religion would call that a god. I'm not refering to any specific god, just the commonly understood meaning of what constitutes a god. He only (sort of, it's open to debate) proved a cause. A god implies a being, not just a force or natural law.
Perhaps so. But it does fit a basic definition of "God" I have seen atheists on these boards demand theists prove. (Basic being the elements most common to the various definitions of "God".)

And I challenge you to prove that he doesn't exist!
Sorry not how things are done ... everythings possible != everything exists untill disproven

You can discuss it all you want ... that doesn't change the FACT that God
is real and much more intelligent then all of us put together!

And I challenge you to prove that he doesn't exist!
That's not the way it works. If you think it's just as easy to prove something doesn't exist as it is to prove it does, then please prove my pet T. Rex doesn't exist. Until then the burden of proof rests on the person making the positive statement.

Exactly. An Entity is a being. You never established why the cause must be a being. Why not some super force of nature that's not guided by an intelligence?
In logic, and "entity" is a thing that exists, something identifiable by a consciousness who slaps it with a word-label.

You can discuss it all you want ... that doesn't change the FACT that God
is real and much more intelligent then all of us put together!
which does not change the fact that he does not exist therefore can not be intelligent at all

Drunk, a few things. The definition is loose for a reason - it's the minimum criteria for godhood. Add any seasoning you like on top of that to form your deity of choice.

Secondly, an entity is not necessarily a being - just something that exists.
In that case one could make the case that all the laws of physics are gods. Why not? They helped craft the universe we live in, and they are immortal.

Firstly, terrorists, dispite what they say, are not religious... you only need a little common sense, very minor knowledge of the main religious texts or to speak to a handful of real believers to discover that. Please do not confuse those who believe in a loving God and those who believe in murder again.

Why not, that offends you? You like to feel like you "truly" believe in God, and that you not being a terrorist is evidence of that. Sorry, but if someone proclaims to believe in God, far be it for me to contradict them - if you want me to do so, to look at self-styled religious people and say of them, "you're not religious, you falsely believe, you lie," what stops me from saying the same of you? Nothing. It's a game, weeding out the "true believers," a common practice by anyone who practices a religion and wears the appropriate T-Shirt. I don't, so I'm gonna lump everyone religious into the same group - religious.

Makes things easier.


Secondly, I'm sorry I annoyed you (boy, you must have such a happt life if such a small comment pissed you off! :p ) I'm not saying that in most ways those who don't believe are unhappy... but there are joys you can never know until you open your eyes & your heart. You can chose to ignore that or disbelieve it, but you have no right to tell me not to say it.

Of course you can say it. I can also say you're a deluded, arrogant, hypocritical prick whose every word reeks of self-righteous contempt. Since now you are of course, equating "believing in God" with "open your eyes and heart." So naturally, I'm blind and a cold-hearted bastard right now? How superior you are.

Well, take your "joys" and shove it - if being so open-eyed and open-hearted and joyful mean you snap at people while making judgements about how happy they are, or how they must be since they don't believe in your pet religion, I'd rather "just say no."

Perhaps so. But it does fit a basic definition of "God" I have seen atheists on these boards demand theists prove. (Basic being the elements most common to the various definitions of "God".)
Nope, it doesn't. Ask around and see how many theists beleive their god is not a living being, just a force of nature.

You can discuss it all you want ... that doesn't change the FACT that God
is real and much more intelligent then all of us put together!
He also sucks my cock at night. I know because I often wake up with a sticky mess down there.

If you can make unfounded assertions, so can I. I even brought some evidence.

In that case one could make the case that all the laws of physics are gods. Why not? They helped craft the universe we live in, and they are immortal.
That is a valid concept of god, and not dissimilar from my own.

In that case one could make the case that all the laws of physics are gods. Why not? They helped craft the universe we live in, and they are immortal.
Uh-uh. They're a part of the universe - only existing once the universe does. They didn't help craft it, because they're a component of the universe itself. Try and explain how the laws of thermodynamics brought reality into being. ;)

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

I don't think you can really prove it it's just called faith it's something you either believe or you do not that's you own descision. im not going to argue with other people who don't believe telling me to prove God exists because that thier opinion and I just have the faith to believe that he does. I guess when the end comes we will all find out if God exists until then you can believe what you want. Cause I don't think anybody could change your opinion no matter what they said.

Sorry not how things are done ... everythings possible != everything exists untill disproven


If thats true then this whole thread is a wasted effort.

In logic, and "entity" is a thing that exists, something identifiable by a consciousness who slaps it with a word-label.
Ok, you got me on the definition of entity. Still, when people talk about god they mean a living being. Not just an entity.

If thats true then this whole thread is a wasted effort.
Not wasted ... Im having fun :p

Ok, you got me on the definition of entity. Still, when people talk about god they mean a living being. Not just an entity.
Firstly, it's an absolute generalisation you're making - and to use a paradoxical counter-argument, all absolute generalisations are wrong.

Secondly, I dare you define what constitutes a living being. ;) And I won't take "something that's alive" as an answer. :P

[QUOTE=Insequa]
Ok, try putting yourself together before you exist.QUOTE]

How about adding bits on after you've become an entity? You cannot put yourself together before you exist but once part of you exists it can create other parts.

So saying I love your arguement, well done!

"I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof destroys faith, and without faith I am nothing"

These types of proofs are pointless yet always used... when did anyone ever say without faith god is nothing ?

These arguments go round in circles for nothing... Relgious belivers can't actually PROVE god exists.. (citing the Bible as proof is crap since it was writen by man)

and those followers of science have no DEFINITIVE answers to anything at any given time, because at any point of time anything can be proven false.. Scientists can't even understand how its possible for the complex formation of nature itself to occur randomly.. can it ever give us the big answers like how the universe was created

The whole thing is like two blind and def people arguing with each other

Uh-uh. They're a part of the universe - only existing once the universe does. They didn't help craft it, because they're a component of the universe itself. Try and explain how the laws of thermodynamics brought reality into being. ;)
If the laws of physics were different, for instance if the gravitational constant was lower, the universe would have been tremendously different. The laws of physics do craft the universe, and come into being at the moment time starts.

Who's to say that your "god" is not a physical law that transcends time and space and makes universes come into being like particle/antiparticle pairs that spring from nothing?

Not many theists would agree with a definition of god that doesn't have consciousness.

How about adding bits on after you've become an entity? You cannot put yourself together before you exist but once part of you exists it can create other parts.

So saying I love your arguement, well done!
Sure - that's something I'll look forward to doing myself one day I hope. :D

And thank you very much.

If the laws of physics were different, for instance if the gravitational constant was lower, the universe would have been tremendously different. The laws of physics do craft the universe, and come into being at the moment time starts.

Who's to say that your "god" is not a physical law that transcends time and space and makes universes come into being like particle/antiparticle pairs that spring from nothing?

Not many theists would agree with a definition of god that doesn't have consciousness.
Now you're just making me laugh. The laws of physics don't craft the universe - we create the laws of physics based on what we see. If the universe were different, that would cause the laws of physics to be different - not the other way around. :D

On to the second point - absolutely nothing. It still fits the minimum criteria for godhood though.

And third, as long as there are some, then the argument holds.

Nope, it doesn't. Ask around and see how many theists beleive their god is not a living being, just a force of nature.
Most theists I have seen profess a god that is a force or concept apart from existence, outside of time and space.

"I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof destroys faith, and without faith I am nothing"

These types of proofs are pointless yet always used... when did anyone ever say without faith god is nothing ?

These arguments go round in circles for nothing... Relgious belivers can't actually PROVE god exists.. (citing the Bible as proof is crap since it was writen by man)

and those followers of science have no DEFINITIVE answers to anything at any given time, because at any point of time anything can be proven false.. Scientists can't even understand how its possible for the complex formation of nature itself to occur randomly.. can it ever give us the big answers like how the universe was created

The whole thing is like two blind and def people arguing with each other
They cant yet (scientists)(though I see more potential in them being able to derive the creation then theists )

Nope, it doesn't. Ask around and see how many theists beleive their god is not a living being, just a force of nature.

Technically God really isn't a living being is he.. because you only are able to realize him once you die.. he is beyond living and dead.. he is an entity or essentially a force of nature.. (im a loyal catholic by the way)

[These arguments go round in circles for nothing... Relgious belivers can't actually PROVE god exists.. (citing the Bible as proof is crap since it was writen by man)

Ok your true there anybody can site something out of a book, but that dosen't make it true. But whatever you believe that's your choice. yes the bible was written by man but men who were there in Gods time. im not gonna try to preach to you because that just offends people. and im not going to try to convince you of anything.

[These arguments go round in circles for nothing... Relgious belivers can't actually PROVE god exists.. (citing the Bible as proof is crap since it was writen by man)

Ok your true there anybody can site something out of a book, but that dosen't make it true. But whatever you believe that's your choice. yes the bible was written by man but men who were there in Gods time. im not gonna try to preach to you because that just offends people. and im not going to try to convince you of anything.
Gods time ... he isent here anymore now?

If one thing doesn't require a cause, then why does anything else? One exception breaks a rule.

Right. So, god doesn't require a cause, so why does anything else? Or the universe doesn't require a cause. Or perhaps there are an infinite amount of causes.

Or perhaps it's not a "rule" and there can be an exception such as god or the universe.


Ok, try putting yourself together before you exist.
Now do you get it?

I can't cause myself. But that doesn't mean nothing else can. Futhermore this bit about "composites." I mean... what? Beacuse I have reducible components I am a composite? And God doesn't? How do we know? Sounds like bullshit to me, the same old God is special the rules never apply to God except when it suits my argument crap.


A definition is not an argument. You seem to get the two mixed up in your objections.
And nice attempt at an argumentum ad hominem. ;) You'll find that on wikipedia under logical fallicy.

Thanks, it was only right when your own ad hominems started flying. ;) Plus, your ad hominem was that I'm stupid for not agreeing. My ad hominem is that philosophers are arrogant. Judging by who is calling who stupid, which ad hominem strikes home more accurately?

I never said a definition was an argument. But I can't very well debate an argument in which I don't agree to the definitions, can I? No, I cannot.



If you'd read the argument, you would have got the reasoning behind the definition. Since you didn't, you either didn't read the argument, or didn't bother to think before you posted. I was banking on the former, but you seem to make a very good case for the latter.

My my what a narrow world.

1. I didn't read the argument, because your argument is infallible and anyone who understands it would agree with it.
2. I did read the argument, but am too stupid to comprehend it's vast meanings.

Of course there isn't a #3... your argument is bullshit designed to make you feel superior to others for having made it. That couldn't possibly be true. Especially not with you congratulating your self every few lines for being such a brilliant fellow! :rolleyes:

They cant yet (scientists)(though I see more potential in them being able to derive the creation then theists )

yet... they can't yet.. its all folly.. Science is based on what is generally accepted in the scientific community. Once a majority of people are convinced of something, things change in sceince.. What scientific test is 100% infalible.. ? Science will never beable to answer the big questions.. because science in itself is reliant on faith.. faith that the evidence (tests) were conducted properly, are reliable, are infalible..

How about adding bits on after you've become an entity? You cannot put yourself together before you exist but once part of you exists it can create other parts.
Your nature as a composite can grow. The universe's cannot --it is, by definition, everything that exists.

[These arguments go round in circles for nothing... Relgious belivers can't actually PROVE god exists.. (citing the Bible as proof is crap since it was writen by man)

Ok your true there anybody can site something out of a book, but that dosen't make it true. But whatever you believe that's your choice. yes the bible was written by man but men who were there in Gods time. im not gonna try to preach to you because that just offends people. and im not going to try to convince you of anything.

Just remember.. man is imperfect... even if the words writen in the bible were given to man by god.. they were transcribed by an imperfect being.. thus the bible itself is imperfect and should not be taken in any litteral sense.

People in "those times" or "Gods time" always exaduated events even if they saw things first hand... this is clearly viewed from every writen text of ancient times (wales were fire breathing sea monsters who swollowed ships whole) ..

yet... they can't yet.. its all folly.. Science is based on what is generally accepted in the scientific community. Once a majority of people are convinced of something, things change in sceince.. What scientific test is 100% infalible.. ? Science will never beable to answer the big questions.. because science in itself is reliant on faith.. faith that the evidence (tests) were conducted properly, are reliable, are infalible..
Probablility of correctness and not faith that the tests were done correctly

One of the main tennants is reproducability ... so you can very well do it yourself

which does not change the fact that he does not exist therefore can not be intelligent at all

Ah, but....

Sorry not how things are done ... everythings possible != everything exists untill disproven

You cannot say that you have proof he doesn't exist, whereas we have proof he does (ok, it's not proof we can exhibit in a court or anything, but does that matter? How do you prove Love by those rules?)


To Santa Barbara: I am not snapping. I do not want to be rude. I apologies if you think I am. I have many lovely friends who do not believe. I never said it makes you a bad person. I never said it makes you unhappy, unloving or unable to enjoy life. I just said there is part of life you cannot experience without believing in God.... Surely that makes perfect sense without being rude? Since you do not believe in God you cannot know the joy of God. I never said you had a closed heart or eyes or mind in general, just closed to God. Or at least that is what I meant. I apologies for the misunderstanding. Obviously you are a lovely, kind, considerate person.... Sorry, that sounds sarcastic. It wasn't meant to. I hope this clarifies things

On the matter of religious terrorists, yes there are some religions that are pro-war & hate & blood. But a lot claim to be Muslims or Christians & thiers is a God of love who specifically told his follows "Thou shalt not kill"... I'm sorry, but to me and many others of both these faiths that means that whatever is driving these terrorists it is not God or their love of Him, it is only their misunderstanding and hate. In the past there probably were true religious terrorists but now they are not so common.
I am not trying to say I'm perfect. Far from it. But this is my religious viewpoint & I know I am not alone in it.

If I am causing great offence then I shall discontinue my replies.

Right. So, god doesn't require a cause, so why does anything else? Or the universe doesn't require a cause. Or perhaps there are an infinite amount of causes.

Or perhaps it's not a "rule" and there can be an exception such as god or the universe.
Ok, now it's just blatantly obvious you didn't get it. Go back and read it again.

I can't cause myself. But that doesn't mean nothing else can. Futhermore this bit about "composites." I mean... what? Beacuse I have reducible components I am a composite? And God doesn't? How do we know? Sounds like bullshit to me, the same old God is special the rules never apply to God except when it suits my argument crap.
lol - again, it's blatantly obvious you didn't get it. The argument finds a deity by what is necessary to fill the necessary slot for the universe to come into existance. One of the features of that position is that the whatever it is needs to be self-caused. A composite cannot cause itself, therefore a creator deity cannot be composite.
Get it now?

Thanks, it was only right when your own ad hominems started flying.
Except they weren't. ;) I was explaining why you were raising objections, not saying your arguments were false because of your mental capacity.

Plus, your ad hominem was that I'm stupid for not agreeing. My ad hominem is that philosophers are arrogant. Judging by who is calling who stupid, which ad hominem strikes home more accurately?
No, you got it the other way around. I said you didn't get it because you were stupid. Not an ad hominem - just a reason for your objections. Subtle difference, but I wonder if you'll get it.

My my what a narrow world.

1. I didn't read the argument, because your argument is infallible and anyone who understands it would agree with it.
2. I did read the argument, but am too stupid to comprehend it's vast meanings.

Of course there isn't a #3... your argument is bullshit designed to make you feel superior to others for having made it. That couldn't possibly be true. Especially not with you congratulating your self every few lines for being such a brilliant fellow!
Now you've proven my point several times over! I didn't write the argument. I even said that in my very next post (and it says that in the article I linked to as the source of the argument). You really didn't get it did you?
It was written by a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics. Just so you know exactly what it is that you're arguing.

Oh well, someone's looking bright this morning. ;) (by the by, it's past 4am here and I've had no sleep and I'm still beating you)

Ah, but....



You cannot say that you have proof he doesn't exist, whereas we have proof he does (ok, it's not proof we can exhibit in a court or anything, but does that matter? How do you prove Love by those rules?)


Never said such ... (sorry the origional post should have had [joke] around it ... I know that does not carry well over a board I was just contradicting) I am actualy agnostic :P

[QUOTE=Insequa]You've obviously missed the entire point of the argument, and fallen into a fallicy for your rebuttal. A part of the criteria of being a god is that they must exist - would you agree? If they don't exist, then they're not a god. That is not the argument, just a requisite point.

The argument itself is the bit under the heading "argument" (in case you missed that, that's why I stuck the heading there), wherein it states that a requisite for the universe existing is something to create it, and that thing, whatever it may be, fulfills the criteria for godhood.


Hmm i don't think so. A part of the criteria of being a god is that they must exist? Really? I think not. Here you are treating existence as a predicate, that something can either have or lack. Yet although it functions grammatically as one, logically it is not. To say that x exists is to say that there is an x in the world to which the description of x corresponds. It is not to assert that in addition to other attributes, x has the attribute of existence. If i'm right on this point, then existence cannot be a necessary attribute of God. Therefore, it is not a necessary criterion of being a God that it must exist. And it is a mere tautology to claim that if there is a God, then it must exist.

Furthermore, as I said before, we have no way of knowing the "criteria for Godhood." Unless you are God, then such knowledge is simply beyond our understanding. An argument which rests on such a premise cannot prove anything!

Probablility of correctness and not faith that the tests were done correctly

One of the main tennants is reproducability ... so you can very well do it yourself

True.... although lots of scientifc studies fail on that part! Lol. Also it is very very hard to create an experiment that eliminates all external factors bar the one tested... Very seldom is there a study that has only one conclusion.

Ahhh. Mr Ellis.

Very well put objection, however the criteria does not state that a god exists. It states that if a god exists, then it exists. It therefore, is not an argument, but a definition.
However, anyone who can argue that to be a god one does not require to exist deserves some applause. ;)

Likewise, the argument validates the definition by demonstrating that it is exactly what is required.

Firstly, it's an absolute generalisation you're making - and to use a paradoxical counter-argument, all absolute generalisations are wrong.

Secondly, I dare you define what constitutes a living being. ;) And I won't take "something that's alive" as an answer. :P
dictionary.com.reference.com/search?q=life

True.... although lots of scientifc studies fail on that part! Lol. Also it is very very hard to create an experiment that eliminates all external factors bar the one tested... Very seldom is there a study that has only one conclusion.
True though that is motivation for improvement … difficulty is not the same as improbability (I look at it this way … at least they have a chance lol) putting the conclusion before the testing or hypothesis really does not give theists a chance (unless they happened to guess right in which case preponderance of evidence will hold their hypothesis true) but they are starting with a conclusion (to them … hypothesis for the rest of us) that they CANT prove false (not and remain in the religion) so unless they guessed right their views wont be modified to fit reality as we discover more about it.(probably does not make sense but I seem to be having troubles composing my thoughts today)

Well done Drunk. I have but two objections:

Firstly, you did not define it yourself.

Secondly, it does not define life by what it is, but by what it has, and by being vague.

To demonstrate:
"The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter..."
What exactly is this property or quality?

"...manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
The use of the word "manifest" demonstrates not a definition by what it is, but a definition by what it can have. Similarly one might say that confectionary can have red stripes, or be brown, or be sweet or sour.

"The characteristic state or condition of a living organism."
Which really tells us what defines life. ;)

Basically it says "life is alive", which is very informative.
The reason I asked, is because scientists themselves cannot exactly pin down what life is. In effect, the minimum criteria for life is probably as vague and non-descript as the minimum criteria for godhood.

Ok, now it's just blatantly obvious you didn't get it. Go back and read it again.


Maybe you better explain your incoherent points better. The only people agreeing with you are - well, Willamena, and she was already united in your "we're philosophers and superior" cause to begin with, so thats hardly conclusive.

In fact, you've already agreed that you can't prove God's existence. I wonder why you seem to be trying to disprove your own statements.

lol - again, it's blatantly obvious you didn't get it. The argument finds a deity by what is necessary to fill the necessary slot for the universe to come into existance. One of the features of that position is that the whatever it is needs to be self-caused. A composite cannot cause itself, therefore a creator deity cannot be composite.
Get it now?

no, because I disagree with your assumption that "a composite cannot cause itself." You'll have to prove that, not just repeating it and repeating it every time it doesn't fly.


Except they weren't. ;) I was explaining why you were raising objections, not saying your arguments were false because of your mental capacity.


Selective memory! Wow! I guess you never made a post saying something like

"Can't fight a torrent of stupidity if they don't even bother to read the argument.

Indoctrination: Not just for idiot theists."

Maybe I'm wrong, and you weren't implying that I am indoctrinated or idiotic or stupid. So tell me, who were you referring to?


No, you got it the other way around. I said you didn't get it because you were stupid. Not an ad hominem - just a reason for your objections. Subtle difference, but I wonder if you'll get it.

Oh, I get it. The difference is, you are making personal attacks because you want to "win." You don't give a shit about proving god - you've already admitted that can't be done. You just want to come off looking superior - which is why I, also, offered a reason for this - you are arrogant, as I said. It reeks in every word you type, every little passive aggressive snippet designed to be an insult without qualifying for 'ad hominem' on some technical basis.


Now you've proven my point several times over! I didn't write the argument. I even said that in my very next post (and it says that in the article I linked to as the source of the argument). You really didn't get it did you?

Gosh, I really didn't see that part. My bad.

So then, how come you didn't read the part IN MY FIRST POST where I said using only this forum and your wits? Christ, look how much time you've made me waste.

Oh and I've proven your point? Good job, I apparently am better at proving your points better than you are. But I don't think I did, see. I think your point was just to "win" and look superior...

Oh well, someone's looking bright this morning. ;) (by the by, it's past 4am here and I've had no sleep and I'm still beating you)

Oh! You ARE trying to "beat" me. What do you know - a philosopher trying to 'win' against me, and patting themselves on the back predictably at every turn.

I offer a different conclusion: it's 4 am and you are suffering from hallucinations. If you had "beaten" me you wouldn't need to tell me of it, nor would *I* have proven *your* points while *you* were unable to! Go to sleep, you obviously need it.

If I am causing great offence then I shall discontinue my replies.
Don't sweat it. Santa Barbara seems to want to take exception to everything.

Well, I myself always think about this. I am a Muslim at birth, but I still contemplate God’s existence. If there is one thing I can point out is that the first mistake of many is to view God as if he were human. I like to think of him (or it) as a force/entity like gravity, sound or light. When I look at Christianity, Judaism or Islam, I find that it is hard to believe that the words are actually the word of God because they seem so humanly conceived. They express rage, frustration, anger, mercy and love- different sets of emotions that are mainly attributes of humans- not an all-powerful creator. Why would it be that such a powerful God would limit itself to such irrelevant conceptions attributed to inferior beings? When you look at the idea of the book, that is a human creation, why did God bring his message in a book? Even the conception of words, why is Arabic considered a holy language in Islam? It’s just a human creation that had evolved from an inferior language system, there’s nothing mystical about it. Basically, a lot of monotheism seems fake because it all seems as if it were man-made. Another important thing is God perspective on his power in relation to us. His conception is like a monarchic hierarchy. Here’s something else that is important- Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all described by themselves as monotheist religions, believing that there is one creator. But if you look at the similarities between the ancient Greco-Roman beliefs, you can see that those three “monotheist” religions don’t really believe in one God at all. In the Greco-Roman beliefs, taking out of account about the titans, there was Zeus who was the main god and that controlled everything. Then there were a bunch of other minor gods who took care of minor things. In the three monotheist religions, you still have the same thing. God is the main god, and there are a bunch of minor gods. Which minor gods you might ask, well, when you think about it- isn’t Satan a mirror image of Hades? And think about the angels and djinns that serve God; they are Holy beings that are superior in the hierarchy created by the three religions. They cab be considered the minor gods in the equation.
All in all though, I don’t disregard the existence of God, here’s why: It is proven that the universe is not internal, that it is expanding into the void that is space, and it keeps on expanding, there must be a central force expanding the universe. This entity exists, this is what develops the basic laws of existence. That is what possibly can be God, whether or not it has human characteristics, I am not sure, but it is there. The problem is, is that there are a lot of questions to ask. Does this God care for our afterlife? Can it contemplate its own existence? Was it conceived in another time undeterminable by man? Or is it in fact the origin? Is it even a thinking entity of any kind? And which religion if any truly does come from this entity?

Most theists I have seen profess a god that is a force or concept apart from existence, outside of time and space.
Most I have seen beleive in a conscious being who created humans in his image. That would include the billions of christians and muslims, the jews, the sihks, etc.

Technically God really isn't a living being is he.. because you only are able to realize him once you die.. he is beyond living and dead.. he is an entity or essentially a force of nature.. (im a loyal catholic by the way)
As a loyal catholic do you think god is an unthinking, unfeeling force, or a thinking, feeling, conscious being?

Don't sweat it. Santa Barbara seems to want to take exception to everything.

Everything? You sure? That's a lot of things.

Maybe, if you'll look, you'll see I am only taking exception to things that seem to be attempts to deliberately anger and frustrate without being relevant to the thread.

Such as, everything you write.

Maybe you better explain your incoherent points better. The only people agreeing with you are - well, Willamena, and she was already united in your "we're philosophers and superior" cause to begin with, so thats hardly conclusive.
You're the only one having trouble understanding the argument.

In fact, you've already agreed that you can't prove God's existence. I wonder why you seem to be trying to disprove your own statements.
A logical progression is not a proof, merely an argument. While it might be convincing, it cannot be considered a proof. Proofs rest on physical verification. Perhaps you were not aware of this?

no, because I disagree with your assumption that "a composite cannot cause itself." You'll have to prove that, not just repeating it and repeating it every time it doesn't fly.
Ok, I'll use very small words for you.
A composite is made up of things. A composite cannot exist until those things are put together to make it. That means, it doesn't exist until they do. What that means, is that until it exists it can't create anything, and if it can't exist until its parts do, it cannot cause any of its parts to come into existance.

NOW do you get it?

Maybe I'm wrong, and you weren't implying that I am indoctrinated or idiotic or stupid. So tell me, who were you referring to?
That was a joke. I was saying that your arguments were idiotic, and were so because you hadn't read the argument. You've since proven that you've read the argument, you just didn't get it.

Oh, I get it. The difference is, you are making personal attacks because you want to "win." You don't give a shit about proving god - you've already admitted that can't be done. You just want to come off looking superior - which is why I, also, offered a reason for this - you are arrogant, as I said. It reeks in every word you type, every little passive aggressive snippet designed to be an insult without qualifying for 'ad hominem' on some technical basis.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
So in other words, you're trying not to touch the argument, because it's blatantly obvious you don't get it, and you're only making yourself look stupider by trying - so now you're attacking me instead.

Let me put it simply: your arguments show you don't get it. Thus it demonstrates you are stupid.

So then, how come you didn't read the part IN MY FIRST POST where I said using only this forum and your wits? Christ, look how much time you've made me waste.
You seem to already have wasted a lot of time - you can't even understand a very simple argument.

Oh and I've proven your point? Good job, I apparently am better at proving your points better than you are. But I don't think I did, see. I think your point was just to "win" and look superior...
Again, you're the only person struggling to grasp the concepts involved.

Oh! You ARE trying to "beat" me. What do you know - a philosopher trying to 'win' against me, and patting themselves on the back predictably at every turn.

I offer a different conclusion: it's 4 am and you are suffering from hallucinations. If you had "beaten" me you wouldn't need to tell me of it, nor would *I* have proven *your* points while *you* were unable to! Go to sleep, you obviously need it.
This is very amusing. You're a blatant idiot, hence why I need to say you've lost. The only point you managed to prove is that you can't understand a simple argument - good on you for congratulating yourself so on your little victory.

Do you want to know what's really funny? I learned logic and metaphysics just last week, on a website.

Just remember.. man is imperfect... even if the words writen in the bible were given to man by god.. they were transcribed by an imperfect being.. thus the bible itself is imperfect and should not be taken in any litteral sense.

People in "those times" or "Gods time" always exaduated events even if they saw things first hand... this is clearly viewed from every writen text of ancient times (wales were fire breathing sea monsters who swollowed ships whole) ..
The definition of god you used in your "proof" doesn't include the ability to dictate books to people. It doens't even include the ability to think. How do you jump from a creative force to an author?

Willamena, what's funnier is that I figured out the basics of logic on my own (many years of arguing, and watching what made sense), and yet manage to hold out on a university level.

But what's funniest of all is that Santa Barbera continuously condemns 'philosophers' (meaning, anyone who's studied the topics he's trying to argue about currently), which demonstrates that he despises anyone who knows anything at all on the topic. Why does he even bother, if he doesn't bother to learn about it?

Most I have seen beleive in a conscious being who created humans in his image. That would include the billions of christians and muslims, the jews, the sihks, etc.
I am impressed... and a bit humbled. I haven't been around long enough to see these billions of people post here, yet.

I have proof for one species to reproduce they need to have seual organs BUT! Since evolutionists say that it takes billions of years for something to develop that species would have died out thus proving, God exists.

Everything? You sure? That's a lot of things.

Maybe, if you'll look, you'll see I am only taking exception to things that seem to be attempts to deliberately anger and frustrate without being relevant to the thread.

Such as, everything you write.
I apologize, then. I think I'll quit this thread, also, and go find me a superior philosopher thread.

Laritia, it's a nice try, but bacteria don't have sexual organs - or any organs at all, and they survive quite nicely. ;)

Well done Drunk. I have but two objections:

Firstly, you did not define it yourself.

Secondly, it does not define life by what it is, but by what it has, and by being vague.

To demonstrate:
"The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter..."
What exactly is this property or quality?

"...manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
The use of the word "manifest" demonstrates not a definition by what it is, but a definition by what it can have. Similarly one might say that confectionary can have red stripes, or be brown, or be sweet or sour.

"The characteristic state or condition of a living organism."
Which really tells us what defines life. ;)

Basically it says "life is alive", which is very informative.
The reason I asked, is because scientists themselves cannot exactly pin down what life is. In effect, the minimum criteria for life is probably as vague and non-descript as the minimum criteria for godhood.
Screw the definition of life. That's not a part of my initial objection. Your definition of god can fit a mindless force just as well as a conscious being. Most theists don't see their god as a mindless creative force. So rather than proving there is a god, you only show that something caused the universe. Then you make a leap and call it god. Your definition of god would be unrecognizable to the majority of theists in the world.

I am impressed... and a bit humbled. I haven't been around long enough to see these billions of people post here, yet.
You know what I'm saying. The people of those faiths I have met dont' express beleif in some mindless force. Such a thing isn't a tennant of their religions. Still, You've been playing word games since I first read one of your posts, can't expect you to stop now.

Screw the definition of life. That's not a part of my initial objection. Your definition of god can fit a mindless force just as well as a conscious being. Most theists don't see their god as a mindless creative force. So rather than proving there is a god, you only show that something caused the universe. Then you make a leap and call it god. Your definition of god would be unrecognizable to the majority of theists in the world.
Sure, but as I said before, it's only a minimum definition - the very least required to be a deity. Most people's deities have extra 'seasoning' to spice them up, if you will, but there are people who believe in a mindless force as a god. You also have to remember that not everyone worships their particular god.

All the argument does is put down the least possible points for what a god may be - anything else is not required (and probably gets in the way if the truth be known) to prove that a deity, or deific force, exists.

Well...as religion is faith based (believing without evidence) it cannot be done. And in fact, to show proof completely does away with religion, and *poof* God disappears in a puff of logic.

Thank you Mr. Adams for allowing me to botch your concept so horribly.


I don't think that is a botch. I think that was Douglas Adam's whole point.

Not wasted ... Im having fun :p

Oh Brother

has anyone seen the eye of god, i dont belive in god but that picture is pretty wierd.

it makes you think about the universe

You're the only one having trouble understanding the argument.


I'm not having trouble. It's your argument, you are failing to make it stick, it's your trouble - particularly as you love to digress about how stupid others are and how much you're "winning."

A logical progression is not a proof, merely an argument. While it might be convincing, it cannot be considered a proof. Proofs rest on physical verification. Perhaps you were not aware of this?

None of that is relevant to what I said. Perhaps you have trouble staying focused?

Ok, I'll use very small words for you.
A composite is made up of things. A composite cannot exist until those things are put together to make it. That means, it doesn't exist until they do. What that means, is that until it exists it can't create anything, and if it can't exist until its parts do, it cannot cause any of its parts to come into existance.

NOW do you get it?

Ooh! Wow! So... you mean to say... exactly what you've already said! How about you go beyond repetition this time? I understand quite clearly what you are assuming, but I disagree with it. You need to understand THAT.

All these "rules" about "composites" you seem to be discussing have no bearing in reality. Who says a composite cannot exist without any of it's parts? That's like saying a car can't exist if it doesn't have wheels, or that it isn't technically a 'car' if it's new tires haven't been manufactured yet.

That was a joke. I was saying that your arguments were idiotic, and were so because you hadn't read the argument. You've since proven that you've read the argument, you just didn't get it.

Luckily, since you've admitted you just used that same argument from some other source, you can't take credit for anything except 'understanding' (agreeing with) it.


HAHAHAHAHAHA.
So in other words, you're trying not to touch the argument, because it's blatantly obvious you don't get it, and you're only making yourself look stupider by trying - so now you're attacking me instead.

No. You were calling me stupid before I even had a chance to reply to it. Nice try, asshole.

Let me put it simply: your arguments show you don't get it. Thus it demonstrates you are stupid.

Wow, your whole point is that I'm stupid! Brilliant! You've totally proven what I've said about philosophers - you're arrogant assholes who care more about looking better than other people than discussing anything. Too bad your whole point about lacking understanding as a demonstration of stupidity would 'demonstrate' that EVERYONE is stupid.

Except you, because there is nothing you don't understand - right? Therefore you are not stupid.

You seem to already have wasted a lot of time - you can't even understand a very simple argument.


Again, you're the only person struggling to grasp the concepts involved.

Blah blah blah, disagreement must equal stupidity/not understanding. Same old story. Get a new one, people.


This is very amusing. You're a blatant idiot, hence why I need to say you've lost. The only point you managed to prove is that you can't understand a simple argument - good on you for congratulating yourself so on your little victory.

It's amusing, but sadly not in the way you claim it is. Maybe you'll understand better when you finally go to sleep - prolonged periods without rest cause mental disruption, you know. I think your post clearly demonstrates that.

I'm not a "blatant idiot" in any case, I'm rather intelligent. Or I know, how about you make a false argument using your own biases as assumptions, and have the conclusion be that anyone who disagrees is STUPID? Oh wait, you already did. Only you failed to make it stick and are now just reduced to simple flaming, like a little child that fails to get his way and blames everyone else for it.

Short of making the moon explode and rearranging the stars to say "GOD WAS HERE", I'll stick with polytheism.

I have proof for one species to reproduce they need to have seual organs BUT! Since evolutionists say that it takes billions of years for something to develop that species would have died out thus proving, God exists.
There are species that can reproduce asexually as well as sexually. Sorry, evolution works here.

Sure, but as I said before, it's only a minimum definition - the very least required to be a deity. Most people's deities have extra 'seasoning' to spice them up, if you will, but there are people who believe in a mindless force as a god. You also have to remember that not everyone worships their particular god.

All the argument does is put down the least possible points for what a god may be - anything else is not required (and probably gets in the way if the truth be known) to prove that a deity, or deific force, exists.
And like I said, it's not much different than worshipping a law of nature. What's that get you? Nothing. Nature doesn't care for worship. It doesn't think about you, or anything else. Might as well worship gravity.

I'm not having trouble. It's your argument, you are failing to make it stick, it's your trouble - particularly as you love to digress about how stupid others are and how much you're "winning."
Which is why nobody else is having the problems you are. Obviously it's the argument.

None of that is relevant to what I said. Perhaps you have trouble staying focused?
It was. I was explaining why I said you can't prove God exists. Again, you seem to have trouble with comprehension.

Ooh! Wow! So... you mean to say... exactly what you've already said! How about you go beyond repetition this time? I understand quite clearly what you are assuming, but I disagree with it. You need to understand THAT.

All these "rules" about "composites" you seem to be discussing have no bearing in reality. Who says a composite cannot exist without any of it's parts? That's like saying a car can't exist if it doesn't have wheels, or that it isn't technically a 'car' if it's new tires haven't been manufactured yet.
Yes, that's exactly what it's saying. A car is not a functioning car without its tires. It's not whole. It's not complete. It's not a car.

Luckily, since you've admitted you just used that same argument from some other source, you can't take credit for anything except 'understanding' (agreeing with) it.
Firstly, what does that matter? The topic is about arguing God's existance, not taking credit for creating a decent argument.
Second - luckily? You're not jealous are you?
Thirdly, understanding isn't agreeing. Understanding is being able to figure out how something works - something you have yet to prove you can do.
Fourthly, what on earth does this have to do with anything?

No. You were calling me stupid before I even had a chance to reply to it. Nice try, asshole.
No, I called you stupid after you replied with idiotic objections. Nice memory asshole.

Wow, your whole point is that I'm stupid! Brilliant! You've totally proven what I've said about philosophers - you're arrogant assholes who care more about looking better than other people than discussing anything. Too bad your whole point about lacking understanding as a demonstration of stupidity would 'demonstrate' that EVERYONE is stupid.

Except you, because there is nothing you don't understand - right? Therefore you are not stupid.
My God - how do people live with you? Yes, that point (that whole point) was devoted to explaining to you why you're an idiot. It doesn't prove a thing about philosophers, since your arguing on the topic makes you a philosopher. Might I ask if you even know the meaning of the word 'philosopher'? To skip a tirade of nonsense, it comes from the Greek philos, meaning knowledge, and sophos meaning love. Effectively, philosopher means 'one who loves knowledge'. So you're just blatantly stating that you don't know anything whenever you condemn philosophers.
And no, everyone else here seems to get the argument quite well, so only you look like an idiot.

And no, there are many things I don't understand - but at least I'll ask how they work.

Blah blah blah, disagreement must equal stupidity/not understanding. Same old story. Get a new one, people.
If you'd disagreed with the argument because of the actual argument then I wouldn't call you an idiot. You disagreed with the argument because of a definition which is upheld (and even explained) by the argument. You didn't even touch the argument itself, and just generally made an arse of yourself.

It's amusing, but sadly not in the way you claim it is. Maybe you'll understand better when you finally go to sleep - prolonged periods without rest cause mental disruption, you know. I think your post clearly demonstrates that.

I'm not a "blatant idiot" in any case, I'm rather intelligent. Or I know, how about you make a false argument using your own biases as assumptions, and have the conclusion be that anyone who disagrees is STUPID? Oh wait, you already did. Only you failed to make it stick and are now just reduced to simple flaming, like a little child that fails to get his way and blames everyone else for it.
The fact that you have to resort to claiming me to be mentally dysfunctional just goes to show that you don't even have a decent argument against it. If you could actually come up with a logical argument, you might actually prove me wrong that you're an idiot, but since you haven't yet come up with anything above the arguments of a 6 year old...

And again, you just demonstrate your vorpal stupidity by saying that I wrote the argument myself, not to mention the fact that the definitions which stem from my 'biases' are upheld by a logical argument to demonstrate their necessity. You really are on a roll.

Oh, and one final point, just to show that you're an egotistical prat with no reasoning capability, I disagree with Drunk, but I definitely don't think he's an idiot.

And like I said, it's not much different than worshipping a law of nature. What's that get you? Nothing. Nature doesn't care for worship. It doesn't think about you, or anything else. Might as well worship gravity.
Obviously you've never run into many wiccans then. They worship laws of nature (or occasionally the "feminine principle" - whatever the hell that is).

And yes, I agree with you, if a deity were only the definition, you might as well worship gravity. It's not so strange, since people have worshipped the sun. However, the majority of modern deities have a little more than just that basic definition.

Meh - I agree with your objections, but I don't think it damages the argument.

However, you've bordered on one of my own misgivings on the argument - it's horribly judaeo-christian in its focus (I'm a christian btw). Sure, it says that there was a godlike thing that created the universe (which doesn't discount that there might be other godlike things), but the way it sets it out suggests that gods can only be creator gods...
Not that that's really an objection to the argument per se, just to the way it was done.

I don't think anyone's given this proof yet, so I'll post it. This does not attempt to prove any specific God exists - just that a god exists.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57

Minimum Criteria for Godhood:
- Must exist
- Must be unique
- Must be self-caused
- Must be the cause of everything else

Assumptions:
1) The universe exists (this is to dispel Hume-level scepticism) - even if I'm an illusion watching an illusion, then something exists.
2) Something can be self-caused (as in the case of the basic quantum particles) or externally caused (as in the case of most things), but never both.
3) If A is a component of B, then B is composite. Furthermore, a composite cannot cause one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place, and therefore cannot be self-caused.

Argument:
The universe, being made up of everything that exists, is composite, and therefore cannot cause any of its components to come into being. Likewise it cannot be self-caused.
Therefore, there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe, likewise, it must be a unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.

The object, G, therefore fulfills the minimum criteria for godhood.

A question. Why does God have to be the cause of everything else? surely, although this would not be the Judaeo-Christian God, there is no reason as to why God could be a part of the universe, subject to its laws and therefore limited by it?

The Babel fish, is small, yellow, and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it.It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish. Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything that mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn´t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don´t. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn´t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo´s kidneys, but that didn´t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, Well That about Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

Basically, what this rather silly paragraph means, is that no proof of God is needed, indeed, it is impossible to prove God as proof supercedes faith. Without faith, God ceases to exist, thus denying the proof.

While, to a logical mind such as mine or (I assume) the topic creator's, this makes little sense. However, to someone else, the idea of faith, the perfectly unprovable yet acceptable truth, is all that is needed.

My point?

God cannot be proven, indeed, should not be proven. You either believe in God or you do not. I, being the apathetic atheist I am, do not care either way but, in a pinch, will claim that I do not believe. Someone else, a Jew for instance, would claim that they do. However, neither of us can challenge the other under acceptable rules to either.

I think you're having too much fun Santa. Obviously my little brain fart wasn't enough for anyone to even comment on. Of course, it could just be that it didn't answer the original question. Rather, it asked another question instead.

A rather simple way to dispel the cut and paste "proof" given by Insequa is to simply postualte that the Universe is self-caused.

This "Universe" fulfills the so-called minimum criteria for Godhood.
- Must exist
- Must be unique
- Must be self-caused
- Must be the cause of everything else

So, in essence, the "universe" is "God". And since the argument establishes that "God" and the "universe" are two separate, distinctive theoritical enities, there is no "God". Or rather, no basis for "God" to exist, since the universe fulfills the minimum Godhood requirements, but is not "God" in its own right.

For those who need something more simple:

universe == universe
universe =/= God

Now for the sticky part. One can similarily claim that God does exist, because the universe is God (based on the premise that it fulfills the minimum Godhood requirements). And since we all know that the universe does exist, and that the universe is God, then God must, without a doubt, exist.

But, based on the general tacit agreement amongst the majority, it has been established that God and the universe are not the same. Therefore, any attempts to prove the existence of God based on the aformentioned argument should be considered null and void.

I think you're having too much fun Santa. Obviously my little brain fart wasn't enough for anyone to even comment on. Of course, it could just be that it didn't answer the original question. Rather, it asked another question instead.

A rather simple way to dispel the cut and paste "proof" given by Insequa is to simply postualte that the Universe is self-caused.

This "Universe" fulfills the so-called minimum criteria for Godhood.
- Must exist
- Must be unique
- Must be self-caused
- Must be the cause of everything else

So, in essence, the "universe" is "God". And since the argument establishes that "God" and the "universe" are two separate, distinctive theoritical enities, there is no "God". Or rather, no basis for "God" to exist, since the universe fulfills the minimum Godhood requirements, but is not "God" in its own right.

For those who need something more simple:

universe == universe
universe =/= God

Now for the sticky part. One can similarily claim that God does exist, because the universe is God (based on the premise that it fulfills the minimum Godhood requirements). And since we all know that the universe does exist, and that the universe is God, then God must, without a doubt, exist.

But, based on the general tacit agreement amongst the majority, it has been established that God and the universe are not the same. Therefore, any attempts to prove the existence of God based on the aformentioned argument should be considered null and void.


Intresting way to think about it

Yes, that's exactly what it's saying. A car is not a functioning car without its tires. It's not whole. It's not complete. It's not a car.


Fine. And a man without legs is not a man. Cripples are not really people. People have two functioning legs. A man without a functioning pair of legs is not whole, complete, or a man.

Firstly, what does that matter? The topic is about arguing God's existance, not taking credit for creating a decent argument.

It's not about "posting arguments that I've found somewhere else, oh here on this other website." You OBVIOUSLY DID NOT read the actual part of the challenge to YOU, not to some mathematician whom you've read and who is not here.

If I wanted general articles proving god I could have looked them up on google. I was posting here to start a discussion in which the posters themselves aimed to prove god. You can see the difference, right?

Second - luckily? You're not jealous are you?

You wish.

Thirdly, understanding isn't agreeing.

No shit! I guess sarcasm doesn't come across online. Then again... since you FAILED to understand a simple thing like that, I could say you're STUPID! Because STUPID people do not have instantaneous and complete comprehension in all things!

Understanding is being able to figure out how something works - something you have yet to prove you can do.

Obviously I haven't figured out ANYTHING, like even how to operate a fucking computer! You're so right! Then again I am NOT HERE TO PROVE MY INTELLECT. You are NOT HERE TO PROVE I AM STUPID. You seem FASCINATED with PROVING HOW LARGE YOUR PENIS IS here.

No, I called you stupid after you replied with idiotic objections. Nice memory asshole.

OMG UR STUPPID ROFFLE.

Doesn't matter. Calling me stupid doesn't do anything but prove you have insecurities and must make yourself out to "beat" me (as you put it). Now you continue to insist that you've "won" and your tired old insults dressed up as if you were the reasonable one.

My objections were you did not read the conditions of the challenge. You replied basically with OMG UR STUPID and have been harping on that ever since. You can no longer even accept psychologically the possibility that I may be right, or hell that I'm NOT STUPID, because to do so would hurt your pride. That's evident to me and anyone else who's been correctly observing your behavior.


My God - how do people live with you? Yes, that point (that whole point) was devoted to explaining to you why you're an idiot.

For example that.

An idiot has an IQ of less than what, 10, 15? Maybe you can do instantaneous, psychic IQ tests online? No. You are just 'explaining' why you don't like me, why you think you're hot shit and why you think I'm stupid for not agreeing that I'm stupid. Yeah, i get it, asshole - clue in to some things, THATS NOT WHAT THE DISCUSSION CALLED FOR.

Did I say for example, "I challenge you to prove how stupid I am?" No. You have been doing nothing but hijacking ever since I reiterated the conditions laid out in the very first post - conditions you apparently decided to ignore, or did not read in the first place. I am not calling you stupid for not reading the topic post of a thread. I do not believe people are stupid just for failing to understand one particular thing. You do, of course.

It doesn't prove a thing about philosophers, since your arguing on the topic makes you a philosopher. Might I ask if you even know the meaning of the word 'philosopher'? To skip a tirade of nonsense, it comes from the Greek philos, meaning knowledge, and sophos meaning love. Effectively, philosopher means 'one who loves knowledge'. So you're just blatantly stating that you don't know anything whenever you condemn philosophers.

Nice! I want a profession where no one can criticize me, without being stupid! How about philosophy? Perfect! If anyone disagrees with ME, I will say they are rejecting KNOWLEDGE, and if I disagree with THEM, I will call them STUPID! Yay Philosophy!

No, when I was talking about philosophers, I did not mean everyone who does love knowledge. I did not mean everyone who historically is referenced as a philosopher. I meant people like you who take a few classes in it and suddenly you think everything you say is knowledge itself.

And no, everyone else here seems to get the argument quite well, so only you look like an idiot.

No. You do look like an idiot. Sorry to point it out.

If only because since you've already "explained" how stupid I am, and yet you continue to argue and argue with me. If I was as stupid as all that there would be no point in your arguing, other than because you're an egotistical blowhard who wants to "win" by typing online a whole lot and trying to tell people how stupid you think they are.

If you'd disagreed with the argument because of the actual argument then I wouldn't call you an idiot. You disagreed with the argument because of a definition which is upheld (and even explained) by the argument. You didn't even touch the argument itself, and just generally made an arse of yourself.

Yeah. An argument which INVOLVES definitions I do not agree with requires something besides me IGNORING that disagreement. That's my rules. If that makes me look like an arse, so be it. I'm not typing to look good to people like you. And, I did not DISAGREE with the argument, I considered it not valid to the subject and challenge at hand, for reasons I've already discussed.


The fact that you have to resort to claiming me to be mentally dysfunctional just goes to show that you don't even have a decent argument against it. If you could actually come up with a logical argument, you might actually prove me wrong that you're an idiot, but since you haven't yet come up with anything above the arguments of a 6 year old...

Interesting. And the fact that you have to resort to calling me stupid shows what...? How is calling me stupid over and over again superior to the arguments of a 6 year old? It's not. Nothing you say against me (and I'm flattered by the volume of negativity, really I am) can't apply to you as well by your own flawed 'logic.'

And again, you just demonstrate your vorpal stupidity by saying that I wrote the argument myself,

I said, and apparently you've missed this too, I hadn't read where you referred to the original post as being what it was - NOT WRITTEN BY YOU. If it's a demonstration of stupidity to overlook something, what does that make you when you overlook the fucking conditions of the challenge? Vorpally stupid? That's right.

not to mention the fact that the definitions which stem from my 'biases' are upheld by a logical argument to demonstrate their necessity. You really are on a roll.

Wait wait, is this the part where you're totally unbiased and objective and reasonable, and you're just calling me stupid as part of your grand logical existentialist argument? Nice. Keep up the good work! OMG UR STUPID ROFFLE LOGIC!

Oh, and one final point, just to show that you're an egotistical prat with no reasoning capability, I disagree with Drunk, but I definitely don't think he's an idiot.

Oh, well since you SAY you don't think he's an idiot, you must not. Way to prove your reasoning, by making an unfounded and unprovable claim that only shows you have the sense not to make more enemies than you can handle in your "wars" to "beat" people.

I'm through with you. Go have your self-proclaimed "victories" against someone who gives a shit.

Fine. And a man without legs is not a man. Cripples are not really people. People have two functioning legs. A man without a functioning pair of legs is not whole, complete, or a man.
What he's saying is, if a car is 'something with wheels' then it cannot be a car if wheels do not exist. If a man is 'something with legs', then it cannot be a man if legs do not exist. If *no* legs exist.

A question. Why does God have to be the cause of everything else? surely, although this would not be the Judaeo-Christian God, there is no reason as to why God could be a part of the universe, subject to its laws and therefore limited by it?
Very well put. And to an extent, I agree with your sentiment. The argument, however, is designed to find a deity through some hole in the logic of reality - and the easiest one in this sense is to find a creator deity, hence why the god has to be the cause of everything else. Most pantheons have one of these gods (Ra, Gaia, El, etc).
However, to follow up with some Hawking - pre-universe, it's hardly limited by the universe's laws. Post-creation, who knows? Does it matter?

A rather simple way to dispel the cut and paste "proof" given by Insequa is to simply postualte that the Universe is self-caused.
Wasn't cut and paste - check the article, I had to decipher the argument from it, and put it in a logical form. Damn reporters. Anyway.

Doesn't work. The argument even says why your objection doesn't work. A composite cannot create itself. The universe is a composite, and therefore cannot create itself. So far that hasn't been shown to be wrong.

Fine. And a man without legs is not a man. Cripples are not really people. People have two functioning legs. A man without a functioning pair of legs is not whole, complete, or a man.
Wow - surprisingly predictable response. A human can be a functioning human without its legs. What defines a human is not its form, but rather its genetics. Nice attempt.

I'm just going to skip all the crap, since it's annoying and only demonstrates you'd rather insult me than possibly find out that you were wrong.

Yeah. An argument which INVOLVES definitions I do not agree with requires something besides me IGNORING that disagreement. That's my rules. If that makes me look like an arse, so be it. I'm not typing to look good to people like you. And, I did not DISAGREE with the argument, I considered it not valid to the subject and challenge at hand, for reasons I've already discussed.
Ok, this is a start. You may disagree with the definition - but the definition is validated by the argument. That's the point.
You yourself agreed (without intending to) that something that is not yet put together cannot build the parts it needs to build itself, yes? That's the rule about composites - that a composite thing cannot make itself, and therefore cannot be self-caused.

What the argument then does, is state that the universe is one such composite, since it's made up of everything in it. It therefore cannot cause itself, and needs something which is self-caused (and therefore, not composite) to make it.

That's the reason a deity must be non-composite and self-caused.

Oh, well since you SAY you don't think he's an idiot, you must not. Way to prove your reasoning, by making an unfounded and unprovable claim that only shows you have the sense not to make more enemies than you can handle in your "wars" to "beat" people.
lol - see, you're the only one here I've called an idiot. You're the only one here's who's been acting like one. Everyone else is capable of reasonably argued objections, and for that, they're not idiots. Mr Ellis and Drunk Commies both make reasonable points - and for that I like them. You however, don't even bother to look for the reason behind the existance of what you are objecting to, and blatantly don't understand the argument.

You've used such arguments as:
Right. So, god doesn't require a cause, so why does anything else? Or the universe doesn't require a cause. Or perhaps there are an infinite amount of causes.

Or perhaps it's not a "rule" and there can be an exception such as god or the universe.
Which is explained in the argument, when it says:
"Something can be self-caused (as in the case of the basic quantum particles) or externally caused (as in the case of most things), but never both."

Futhermore this bit about "composites." I mean... what? Beacuse I have reducible components I am a composite? And God doesn't? How do we know? Sounds like bullshit to me, the same old God is special the rules never apply to God except when it suits my argument crap.
And this is explained by the definition proving itself to be necessary (which is the whole point of the argument), as the universe (which is composite) requires something which is self-caused (and therefore non-composite) to make it.

You disagree with yourself:
I can't cause myself.
... I disagree with your assumption that "a composite cannot cause itself." You'll have to prove that, not just repeating it and repeating it every time it doesn't fly.

And continue to argue in this manner, and wonder why I say you don't get the argument.

I'll put the argument simpler for you:

For a god to be a god, it must exist, it must be universal, it cannot be caused by something else, and, because we're arguing for a creator deity, it must be the cause of everything.

Now we'll establish some ground rules (these are the assumptions):
1) The universe exists
2) Something can cause itself, or be caused by something else.
3) If something has parts, it is a composite, and a composite cannot cause itself to exist, because it doesn't exist until its parts do.

Now, the universe is composite, because it's everything. Therefore it can't cause itself. So it needs something to cause it. That something can't be composite, because it has to cause itself to exist as well as the universe (it's the first thing, so there's nothing to cause it to be). It also has to be universal, (because it's the cause of everything).

That thing fulfills the definition of a god that I gave above (showing that what is needed is what I said a god was), and therefore a god exists.

Now, the universe is composite, because it's everything.

Is the universe composite? I guess it depends on how "universe" is defined. If universe is "everything there is" then surely God "is", and so must be part of the universe. But we don't want to be saying this, as then God would be a component part of the universe. If the universe is defined as "all matter" or "everything contingent" then this may avoid this problem, but it fails to take into account metaphysical things, such as the human soul, which I assume Christians would assert were part of the universe.

Perhaps we shouldn't view the universe as composite, but rather holistically.

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

*sighs* When will they learn?

It is not about Proof, it is about Faith. Faith not Proof. Let me repeat that:
Faith not Proof, Faith not Proof, Faith not Proof.

Get it? Belief in God does not come from proof, it comes from Faith. If you cannot accept that, fine, I understand, it's your loss, and Jesus loves you anyway.

Is the universe composite? I guess it depends on how "universe" is defined. If universe is "everything there is" then surely God "is", and so must be part of the universe. But we don't want to be saying this, as then God would be a component part of the universe. If the universe is defined as "all matter" or "everything contingent" then this may avoid this problem, but it fails to take into account metaphysical things, such as the human soul, which I assume Christians would assert were part of the universe.
Quick on the uptake, but I answered this in my last post (although perhaps I was unclear).

We're hypothesising a god that existed prior to the universe, and therefore, only became a part of the universe once the universe existed. All this means is that the god would form a single part of the universe - still makes the point that the universe can't exist until all its parts are brought together. The parts of a composite can exist before the composite itself exists... otherwise we wouldn't be able to build anything, would we? :)

However, it is an interesting thought that a subunit of a composite is able to bring the composite together.

Perhaps we shouldn't view the universe as composite, but rather holistically.
You can look at a toaster holistically too, but that doesn't mean one will spring out of nowhere. ;)

Prove he doesn't exsist... Oh, wait, you can't.

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.

Also do you want to take the chance taht god will be angry with you atheests and sent you to hell?

Jesus was the living son of god. Our Lord and Savior. That's all the proof you need.

Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?
1) You assume that God is love and without God love wouldn't exist. You have no prof whatsoever that those things have anything to do with eachother.

2) What? That's an old arguement that doesn't work. What if Jahve or Allah exiats? Then we'll go to hell anyway. And if Buddha was right you'll stay in Samsara forever waiting for your saving. Should I then pick the one with the most fearsome hell, just to make sure I don't go there?

3) Yeah, and now he's dead. Well done.

4) Why would the theory of where everything came from have anything to do with a human-like god?



If I said I had invented a machine that could make gravity disappear you have every right to not believe me until I prove it. You have to prove things to be recognized.

Prove he doesn't exsist... Oh, wait, you can't.
So we should base our whole lives off of something just because it could exist?

So we should base our whole lives off of something just because it could exist?
In other cultures they've based their lives on other beliefs and some of them are still alive. Still, you don't need a solid soil to just live. People can live regardless of their beliefs.

In other cultures they've based their lives on other beliefs and some of them are still alive. Still, you don't need a solid soil to just live. People can live regardless of their beliefs. Yes they can live ... but (depending on the religion) there are restrictions to being a member of most of them rules to follow
Being a member of a religion is not a cost free solution ...
So in beliving I would have to pay that cost... which is hefty thing to ask of one who is not sure what he is sacraficing for is true

Yes they can live ... but (depending on the religion) there are restrictions to being a member of most of them rules to follow
Being a member of a religion is not a cost free solution ...
So in beliving I would have to pay that cost... which is hefty thing to ask of one who is not sure what he is sacraficing for is true
Atheism contains bondings as well, such as ethics. Though it's possible to live without all of them. Actually living without ethics, politics and religion is the most free life (powered by knowledge (or whatever that is)).

Atheism contains bondings as well, such as ethics. Though it's possible to live without all of them. Actually living without ethics, politics and religion is the most free life (powered by knowledge (or whatever that is)).
Oh I understand life in general has costs ... I just dont need the costs of religion on top of the other burdens I have to bear (specialy when it is optional unlike a lot of the other ones currently)

1) You assume that God is love and without God love wouldn't exist. You have no proof whatsoever that those things have anything to do with eachother.

3) Yeah, and now he's dead. Well done.


We assume God is love because the Bible says so, several times (see 1 John 4). Christians have the Bible as axiomatic; I can see how that winds non-Christians up, but it's the way Christianity works.

And we don't think Jesus is dead, we think He's alive, which is what the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus are all about. He died, He was raised to life, He went to be with the Father. Also, He's coming back.

We assume God is love because the Bible says so, several times (see 1 John 4). Christians have the Bible as axiomatic; I can see how that winds non-Christians up, but it's the way Christianity works.

And we don't think Jesus is dead, we think He's alive, which is what the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus are all about. He died, He was raised to life, He went to be with the Father. Also, He's coming back.
Yeah I suppose that does get us wound up
Seeing the logic on basing everything on one ambiguous … argumentative (even within itself) translated, as well as mis-translated human interpreted, human wrote source as fact is hard to wrap our heads around. But most of us can understand without believing (the fact that most of us come from religious backgrounds helps in that understanding)

Yeah I suppose that does get us wound up
Seeing the logic on basing everything on one ambiguous … argumentative (even within itself) translated, as well as mis-translated human interpreted, human wrote source as fact is hard to wrap our heads around. But most of us can understand without believing (the fact that most of us come from religious backgrounds helps in that understanding)
But that's the thing about axioms, they never seem sensible to someone who doesn't hold them, because they are not logically derived. Axioms, assumptions, postulates, fundamental beliefs, call them what you will, they're a matter of faith.
I don't know what your life axioms are, or if you've ever sat down and thought about the issue. I've read enough of your posts to know that you do think about things (more than is obviously apparent from some of those who defend Chrsitianity on these pages!), but if we're playing the game of life according to different rulebooks, we're bound to disagree on good practice sometimes.

I accept that the Bible is sometimes ambiguous (in fact, I think it may be deliberately ambiguous sometimes).
I accept that some parts of the Bible seem to argue with other parts (possibly sometimes due to developing knowledge throughout the history of the Bible of God and His ways, possibly sometimes due to the attempt to express extraordinarily difficult (and perhaps impossible) concepts for the human mind to grasp).
I accept that all Bibles currently extant are copies, and that every Bible I've ever read is a translation, and that there have been mistranslations of the Bible.
I accept that the original manuscripts of the Bible were written by humans.

I recognise that you put these challenges in a respectful and sincere manner, which is a lot more than I can say of many of the challengers of the Bible.

But I still believe that it's God's message to humanity. It's message has changed my life, by introducing me to Jesus Christ. Therefore, it's my favourite book, and I intend to live by it's principles, and learn more about God by reading it.

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.
How has this thread lasted so long?

No person with real faith would stoop to "proving" god's existence. You either believe or you don't. It has nothing to do with proof.

But that's the thing about axioms, they never seem sensible to someone who doesn't hold them, because they are not logically derived. Axioms, assumptions, postulates, fundamental beliefs, call them what you will, they're a matter of faith.
I don't know what your life axioms are, or if you've ever sat down and thought about the issue. I've read enough of your posts to know that you do think about things (more than is obviously apparent from some of those who defend Chrsitianity on these pages!), but if we're playing the game of life according to different rulebooks, we're bound to disagree on good practice sometimes.

I accept that the Bible is sometimes ambiguous (in fact, I think it may be deliberately ambiguous sometimes).
I accept that some parts of the Bible seem to argue with other parts (possibly sometimes due to developing knowledge throughout the history of the Bible of God and His ways, possibly sometimes due to the attempt to express extraordinarily difficult (and perhaps impossible) concepts for the human mind to grasp).
I accept that all Bibles currently extant are copies, and that every Bible I've ever read is a translation, and that there have been mistranslations of the Bible.
I accept that the original manuscripts of the Bible were written by humans.

I recognise that you put these challenges in a respectful and sincere manner, which is a lot more than I can say of many of the challengers of the Bible.

But I still believe that it's God's message to humanity. It's message has changed my life, by introducing me to Jesus Christ. Therefore, it's my favourite book, and I intend to live by it's principles, and learn more about God by reading it.


See I can understand faith in general … in a being … using the bible as a general attempt at explanation.

Even as specific topics as the fact that he had a son and that son died supposedly for us.


It is the people who use it literally verse by verse to support their position the ones that cant see that it maybe is just a moral guide not meant to be exact that I don’t understand specialy when they take it down to individual word meaning on a translated document

You understand what I mean?

Example homosexuality argument comes down to word choice eventually (grave-n-idle is much better at this then me … I am a broad concepts guy, he is the one that speaks Hebrew) where one word being a mistake can make all the difference in a position

I just don’t get that you have to have some margin of error there for mistakes in human communication with one and other (the idea that like you said hard concepts can be effectively translated into written words then back into ideas and that the ideas on the receiving end will in anyway resemble the original is amazing as we all are shaped by our past experience)

I am being vague but I digress

See I can understand faith in general … in a being … using the bible as a general attempt at explanation.
Even as specific topics as the fact that he had a son and that son died supposedly for us.
It is the people who use it literally verse by verse to support their position the ones that cant see that it maybe is just a moral guide not meant to be exact that I don’t understand specialy when they take it down to individual word meaning on a translated document
You understand what I mean?
Example homosexuality argument comes down to word choice eventually (grave-n-idle is much better at this then me … I am a broad concepts guy, he is the one that speaks Hebrew) where one word being a mistake can make all the difference in a position
I just don’t get that you have to have some margin of error there for mistakes in human communication with one and other (the idea that like you said hard concepts can be effectively translated into written words then back into ideas and that the ideas on the receiving end will in anyway resemble the original is amazing as we all are shaped by our past experience)
I am being vague but I digress
In some ways, I agree with you, but not all the way.

I too become annoyed with people who quote verses from the Bible out of context, out of culture, even out of grammar, just to make their point. The details of the Bible can only be understood by a study of its context, the culture into which it was first written, the use of poetic imagery, the use of grammar, and so on. The Bible was not written yesterday, and the message of the Bible is not contained within each one of its individual verses. If the Devil is able to deliberately misquote Scripture, then we might do it as well, deliberately or accidentally, and this is something I need to watch myself for.

However, I do believe that some passages from the Bible are less context-dependent than others, and that there is absolute, universal truth within the Bible that can be directly applied to all cultures, all times, all lives. A commonly used example of this is John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life"), which is one of the best summaries of the Bible from within the Bible itself.

I believe that you can only really understand the Bible with God's help, as He gives His Holy Spirit to believers to shape their understanding. So it comes down to trust, trusting the God that is described to anyone who can read and has access to a Bible, that He will help those who seek Him to find Him.

Prove he doesn't exsist... Oh, wait, you can't.
Just as you can't prove Ra, Zeus, Thor nor the invisible pink unicorn don't exist.

Just as you can't prove Ra, Zeus, Thor nor the invisible pink unicorn don't exist.
I wonder why everyone uses pink (sorry side note) me myself used a pink elephant … and someone else used if I remember a pink whale and something about a bicycle lol and this happens over and over

There is the pink 56 chevy orbiting mars or proving the pink mouse really does not steal your socks

(I have heard them all)

Maybe people choose pink because we think of neon pink … which really (while in some flowers) does not seem like an “animal” color to us

Wow - surprisingly predictable response. A human can be a functioning human without its legs. What defines a human is not its form, but rather its genetics. Nice attempt.


Huh. And what defines a car is not it's genetics but it's manufacture. A car can be manufactured with wheels and later, lose those wheels. It is STILL a car.

Nice attempt. Surprisingly predictable in that you like to define things arbitrarily to fit your conclusions, and then when I disagree with your definitions in the first place and argue with them, you get all pissy, call me names and proclaim "victory" in some imaginary "battle" you are having where you "beat" me by calling me an idiot. That's been your problem the whole time - among other things.


I'm just going to skip all the crap, since it's annoying and only demonstrates you'd rather insult me than possibly find out that you were wrong.


Oddly enough, that's exactly what my 'crap' was saying of you. I'm the insulting one, but of course when you're "explaining" that I'm a giant stupid idiot it's demonstrating that you are quite fond of insulting ME rather than turning your perception on your own actions and motives.

Ok, this is a start. You may disagree with the definition - but the definition is validated by the argument. That's the point.
You yourself agreed (without intending to) that something that is not yet put together cannot build the parts it needs to build itself, yes?

No. I agreed that I cannot cause myself, but that doesn't mean that ANYTHING built of more than one part cannot either. You imagined I agreed.

And if my future self is composed of my present self, plus knowledge and experience I accumulate, then yes something that is not yet 'composited' can self-composite. Because if I take you right, you imagine a "thing" as unchanging, and if change occurs (i.e a car without wheels) the thing itself transmutes into something entirely different (i.e, not a car). I don't, I think things are constantly changing and a lot of those changes are self-caused, thus the change and the cause get swept up into the new composite.


That's the rule about composites - that a composite thing cannot make itself, and therefore cannot be self-caused.

Is there a rulebook of composites, perhaps, that you're alluding to this authoriatative rule? Anyway...

What the argument then does, is state that the universe is one such composite, since it's made up of everything in it. It therefore cannot cause itself, and needs something which is self-caused (and therefore, not composite) to make it.

Assuming your 'rule' was correct, the conclusion is still not the only option. The universe could be caused by other 'composites' - or in fact, not 'caused' at all. Now, when I say that, you seem to think if the universe was not 'caused' that it didn't "begin" there is no causality. There is causality, and so all you are saying is that you believe it irrefutable that the universe - that is, everything in existence - was caused. I don't. And frankly I still am not at all convinced about your rule of 'composites' anyway.

lol - see, you're the only one here I've called an idiot. You're the only one here's who's been acting like one.

Oh! Good thing YOU don't demonstrate that you just enjoy giving insults.

How about this, you've been acting like an egotistical My-Intellectual-Penis-Is-Bigger-Than-You pseudointellectual fucktard. And you're the only one here I've called that. Must be true!

It can't possibly be because you are deliberately trying to piss me off. Or maybe you only call people idiots when you're trying to sound reasonable and intellectual. Well it sure works! Nothing smacks of reason and intellect like OMG LOL UR STUPID.

You however, don't even bother to look for the reason behind the existance of what you are objecting to, and blatantly don't understand the argument.

There are plenty of things you haven't blatantly understood either, my friend, and I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of things you will never understand. That doesn't make you stupid. Nor does me not understanding a particular thing, like your argument, make me stupid. Get it? No? Didn't think so.


Now we'll establish some ground rules (these are the assumptions):
1) The universe exists
2) Something can cause itself, or be caused by something else.
3) If something has parts, it is a composite, and a composite cannot cause itself to exist, because it doesn't exist until its parts do.

Now, the universe is composite, because it's everything.

Everything in existence also would include God (if God existed). Therefore you are asserting that a composite can be constructed by one of it's components and thus, by itself. (Since a composite is COMPOSED of it's components.)

Me, I don't even see the need for the universe to have been 'caused' by one ultimate thing in the first place... if I agreed with that I could just agree with any variety of the Cosmological arguments. Of which your argument seems to be one. Similarly I can (and do) disagree that the assumption that there cannot be an endless string of objects causing one another, for example, thus the universe not requiring a single uncaused cause or 'necessary component.'

It's not really why I created this thread, because I wanted people's own viewpoints, people on NS. I didn't want copied and pasted OR re-hashed versions of other proofs, I wanted people to attempt their own.

Now I've skipped the parts where you copy and paste a bunch of my statements on your immortal quest to prove how stupid I am. Sorry, don't have time or energy to spend every post defending myself against someone who obviously can't see past his own ego (your shit doesn't stink, if I'm reading you right). Instead I'll quote myself as well, the relevant bit from my last post:


I'm through with you

Look me up when I make a "Prove Santa Barbara is stupid!" thread, though. Okay? Thanks.

I believe in the Krishna Consciousness aspect of this argument. God gives those who don't believe in Him the knowledge and the philosophy of atheism to prove and convince themselves that He doesn't exist. To those that have faith and belief in his existance He gives them the knowledge and the revelation of his existence. He never interferes with the individuals free will to accept whatever system of knowledge they have an affinity for. Of course at the end of the Kali-yuga he incarnates as the Kalki-avatar and kills off all the atheists and delivers all the faithful theists from Kings of the Earth who have degenerated into plunderers.

How has this thread lasted so long?

No person with real faith would stoop to "proving" god's existence. You either believe or you don't. It has nothing to do with proof.

It's mostly the people without faith who are doing the attempting, I think.

And yes indeed, it's not about proof, and there is no proof - even logical proof can easily be disregarded since god is not logical, nor is human behavior or decisions. And that's if the logical proof is irrefutable, which it doesn't seem to be (at least, there's nothing at all like universal agreement about proof either way). Proof can mean many things, and its usually highly subjective based on the prove-r and the prove-e.

I guess that was my point. Or maybe I just wanted a big thread where people get to call me stupid. :) That's usually what these arguments turn out to be. "You don't understand what I'm saying, you're stupid!" "You don't believe as I do, you're stupid!" Or just, "You're stupid!"

The reason the thread has lasted so long is because there is no conclusive proof, and people like unending struggles.

Doesn't work. The argument even says why your objection doesn't work. A composite cannot create itself. The universe is a composite, and therefore cannot create itself. So far that hasn't been shown to be wrong.

When has it been established that the universe is a composite? There are those who claim that God is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals such as us, yet, those same claim to understand the universe in all its infinite complexities. What says that the universe is composed of individual parts? Could the universe exist without, say, hydrogen (the stuff that stars are made of)? While that initial statement would support the composite theory, you must include a second statement. Could hydrogen exist without the rest of the universe? I would say no. And since neither can exist without the other, it would stand to reason that the "parts" are integral to mutual existence, and therefore not a composite.

In simpler terms, take a human body for example. You claim that a human body is merely a composition of many parts. So therefore, you can find a human heart existing in perfect normality outside the human body, as well as a human body existing in normality without a human heart. This is obviously impossible. Therefore, the human body is not a composite, rather, it is a single entity.

The reason the thread has lasted so long is because there is no conclusive proof, and people like unending struggles.

Pishaw! I gave conclusive, irrefutable proof. You simply lack the mental capacity to properly comprehend the elegant simplicity of my explanation of the universe, God, and all things inbetween. I am the proof! WORSHIP ME! Bwahahahahahahaha!

Huh. And what defines a car is not it's genetics but it's manufacture. A car can be manufactured with wheels and later, lose those wheels. It is STILL a car.
You obviously missed the point where I said once something is made, it can be changed.
The good Yakshis asked me that.

Oddly enough, that's exactly what my 'crap' was saying of you. I'm the insulting one, but of course when you're "explaining" that I'm a giant stupid idiot it's demonstrating that you are quite fond of insulting ME rather than turning your perception on your own actions and motives.
Look, it's obvious to anyone that you didn't get the argument, otherwise you might have understood the reasoning behind the definitions sooner.

No. I agreed that I cannot cause myself, but that doesn't mean that ANYTHING built of more than one part cannot either. You imagined I agreed.
Point to something that can build itself before it's been built. I dare you.

And if my future self is composed of my present self, plus knowledge and experience I accumulate, then yes something that is not yet 'composited' can self-composite. Because if I take you right, you imagine a "thing" as unchanging, and if change occurs (i.e a car without wheels) the thing itself transmutes into something entirely different (i.e, not a car). I don't, I think things are constantly changing and a lot of those changes are self-caused, thus the change and the cause get swept up into the new composite.
Your future self is:
1) not an existing entity, and
2) not self-created.
My reasoning is this:
Your 'future self' is an aggregate of your present self, your future interactions (which require external input), your future intake of nourishment (again, external input), etc. And your own self was not self-caused to begin with (unless you somehow time-travelled and had relations with your mother... and that is something I've yet to see... nor do I really want to, ew - but then again, you're still not entirely self-caused since you're also partly caused by your mother).

Is there a rulebook of composites, perhaps, that you're alluding to this authoriatative rule? Anyway...
I'll quote myself for you:
If A is a component of B, then B is composite. Furthermore, a composite cannot cause one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place, and therefore cannot be self-caused.
You have yet to demonstrate that this is false.

Assuming your 'rule' was correct, the conclusion is still not the only option. The universe could be caused by other 'composites' - or in fact, not 'caused' at all. Now, when I say that, you seem to think if the universe was not 'caused' that it didn't "begin" there is no causality. There is causality, and so all you are saying is that you believe it irrefutable that the universe - that is, everything in existence - was caused. I don't. And frankly I still am not at all convinced about your rule of 'composites' anyway.
Assuming the rule is correct, the universe is a composite and cannot be self-caused.

Assuming the universe had no cause, then why do you demand that the god need a cause? If you're right, then both options are equally plausible.

Assuming that the "rule of composites" is false, then why doesn't it rain toasters? Or cars? Why don't we have self-caused items popping out of nowhere? In fact, the only thing we do find that is self-caused is non-composite in nature - quantum particles.

Oh! Good thing YOU don't demonstrate that you just enjoy giving insults.
I certainly don't enjoy dealing with idiots. Why should I enjoy insulting them? Rather, I am trying to show you that you've erred severely, and are making a fool of yourself. I admit, I probably did it in a way that made it worse.

How about this, you've been acting like an egotistical My-Intellectual-Penis-Is-Bigger-Than-You pseudointellectual fucktard. And you're the only one here I've called that. Must be true!
Go ahead - vent your frustration. The difference is, that I can show why you are wrong, and you've only brought arguments that boil down to "no, I disagree". Edit: so far - the ones below are good.

It can't possibly be because you are deliberately trying to piss me off. Or maybe you only call people idiots when you're trying to sound reasonable and intellectual. Well it sure works! Nothing smacks of reason and intellect like OMG LOL UR STUPID.
Good thing I never said that then. And why on earth would I be "deliberately trying to piss you off"? For someone who says I'm an "egotistical My-Intellectual-Penis-Is-Bigger-Than-You pseudointellectual fucktard", you sure are self-centred. Might I ask, what purpose would it serve? I presented an argument, and you denounced it... by saying the definitions were wrong. Not only that, but you did it when the argument demonstrated that the definitions were not only right, but necessary - and then you didn't touch the argument itself.

There are plenty of things you haven't blatantly understood either, my friend, and I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of things you will never understand. That doesn't make you stupid. Nor does me not understanding a particular thing, like your argument, make me stupid. Get it? No? Didn't think so.
It's quite possible that there are many things I'll never understand. The difference between me and you, is that I'll stop to watch how they work, while you just blunder ahead and make a fool of yourself. That's the stupidity.
If you had just asked questions about why it was written the way it was (and it was obviously written that way for a reason, or it would have been written that way), then I might actually have treated you respectably. Instead, you acted stupidly, and I responded stupidly in kind.

Everything in existence also would include God (if God existed). Therefore you are asserting that a composite can be constructed by one of it's components and thus, by itself. (Since a composite is COMPOSED of it's components.)
Aaahhh - very good. The point, however, has already been raised.

If a component can be independant, it can create a composite of which it is a part. However, the composite does not exist until the parts come together, so a composite cannot create itself. So to put it simply, the universe didn't create the god and then everything else - the god created itself (by being non-composite) and then created the universe.

You're getting much better. That argument deserves some applause. ;) (No, I'm not teasing you - it was quite an enjoyable line of reasoning, and very well written)

Me, I don't even see the need for the universe to have been 'caused' by one ultimate thing in the first place... if I agreed with that I could just agree with any variety of the Cosmological arguments. Of which your argument seems to be one. Similarly I can (and do) disagree that the assumption that there cannot be an endless string of objects causing one another, for example, thus the universe not requiring a single uncaused cause or 'necessary component.'
Interesting. I fail to see however, how an infinite progression of creators relates to a single self-caused creator - the two are separate ideas, and have no influence on the merit of each other.

It's not really why I created this thread, because I wanted people's own viewpoints, people on NS. I didn't want copied and pasted OR re-hashed versions of other proofs, I wanted people to attempt their own.
I'm quite fond of this argument, and it's not a common one (certainly is the first time most people here have seen it, according to their reactions) - perhaps that counts for something? I'm also using my wits to defend it against other members, who've raised some interesting points.

Now I've skipped the parts where you copy and paste a bunch of my statements on your immortal quest to prove how stupid I am. Sorry, don't have time or energy to spend every post defending myself against someone who obviously can't see past his own ego (your shit doesn't stink, if I'm reading you right).
Well then, once again, you've read me wrong.

I'm through with you
Damn - for someone who's been through with me for 2 posts now, you're actually beginning to raise some enjoyable arguments. Ones that I might expect from someone who'd actually spent a lot of time philosophising.

Just as a side-note, I've been doing it for at least 7 years now. ;) I'm not one of those irritating "I've learned the secrets of the universe" students. A reasonable argument is a joy to behold - and that's why I'd call myself a philosopher. Joy in knowledge. You're becoming fun, you just need to spend a little longer looking through the argument before you start forming a counter-argument. Sorry I was insulting.

When has it been established that the universe is a composite? There are those who claim that God is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals such as us, yet, those same claim to understand the universe in all its infinite complexities. What says that the universe is composed of individual parts? Could the universe exist without, say, hydrogen (the stuff that stars are made of)? While that initial statement would support the composite theory, you must include a second statement. Could hydrogen exist without the rest of the universe? I would say no. And since neither can exist without the other, it would stand to reason that the "parts" are integral to mutual existence, and therefore not a composite.
Well reasoned, but a composite with mutually-reliant parts is still a composite (remember, creatures with mutually-reliant parts [like bats for example] are used by creationists do denounce evolution, and it doesn't work there either).
One might argue that the universe could exist without hydrogen, but that doesn't actually relate, since the universe is the aggregate of all matter and energy and anything else inside it - as long as there's something in it, it exists.
As a side point, it's also obvious therefore, that if god is not composite, it's neither matter nor energy.

In simpler terms, take a human body for example. You claim that a human body is merely a composition of many parts. So therefore, you can find a human heart existing in perfect normality outside the human body, as well as a human body existing in normality without a human heart. This is obviously impossible. Therefore, the human body is not a composite, rather, it is a single entity.
Firstly, a composite's parts do not necessarily need to have existed outside the composite. You will agree that the original cells of a human being come from another human being? That means that a human being is constructed slowly.
You might not find a heart outside a human being - but you will find fetuses without hearts. A human slowly forms all its necessary parts inside of itself - but it's still not self-caused.

Secondly, on the atomic scale, a human body is a composite of many [--insert ridiculously high number--] of atoms - and those do exist outside the body, in even greater quantities than those found inside the body. So a human is a composite of subatomic particles.

You can take a holistic view if you want, but then you'll have to explain why it doesn't rain toasters. ;)

You can take a holistic view if you want, but then you'll have to explain why it doesn't rain toasters. ;)

That part is easy, because it already rains water.

Your point on subatomic particles being the most basic of composition for everything is interesting. However, with the introduction of so-called "string theory", is not everything connected? And if it is all connected, would it not make everything as part of a whole? And since it is a whole, it is no longer a composition of individual parts. But, more importantly, back to the original composite argument. You misunderstand my explanation. It is not can a composite part exist outside of its composite, but can a composite part exist without its composite. The point on hydrogen is very relevant. If it weren't for the most basic of elements, hydrogen, there would be nothing. Every element is essentially hydrogen energized with extra protons and electrons slapped on. While this may seem to support the idea that hydrogen is a composite part of the universe, thereby making the universe a composite; there is still the question of whether there would be hydrogen if there was no universe. You say that it doesn't matter since the universe is an aggregate of all matter and energy. Well, hydrogen happens to be a aprt of that "aggregation". Since it has been stated that energy can neither be made or destroyed, does it not mean that subatomic particles are not "parts" of that "aggregation", but rather IS the "aggregation", in another form.

If you want to break it down into the simplist terms of sub atmoics and energy, the universe is composed purely of energy. That energy can then be converted in matter and back, but still remains the same energy. Therefore, on that basis, the universe is made up of only one "part" - energy. And since there is only one "part", there is no composite.

This brings us back to my original claim that there is no God because there is no need for anythign else to fulfil the Godhood requirements:
- Must exist
- Must be unique
- Must be self-caused
- Must be the cause of everything else

The last point is debatable, since the universe is now not the cause of everything else, but rather, IS everything else.

I'll insert a couple of statements...


Point to something that can build itself before it's been built. I dare you.


Spontaneous creation of pair particles-antiparticles. If the particle happens to be one that can decay, there's a chance that it will and then you've got something out of nothing.

Or, I'll just add in an option - a composite can be caused by its parts, which are NOT composite. Example - a star (composite object, lots of atoms) is caused by the spontaneous gravitational attraction of hydrogen atoms (not composite).

Or, a composite can develop from something simpler - for example, humans evolving from a single-celled organism.

Or, a single, non-composite subatomic particle can decay into a bunch of particles (a composite set).


If A is a component of B, then B is composite. Furthermore, a composite cannot cause one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place, and therefore cannot be self-caused.

The statement "because it could not exist without all its components in place" is false. There are plenty of composite things that can exist with only part of their components. For example, if you removed one hydrogen atom from the universe, the universe would still exist. If you removed a leg from a human being, the human being would still exist, as you've said.



Assuming the universe had no cause, then why do you demand that the god need a cause? If you're right, then both options are equally plausible.

If the universe had no cause, then the idea of God as a first cause is unnecessary, since the universe had no cause.
If the universe DID have a cause, God, then we can ask what caused God.

Assuming that the "rule of composites" is false, then why doesn't it rain toasters? Or cars?

Because of the laws of physics and chemistry and thermodynamics and plenty of other considerations. Why WOULD it rain toasters?

Why don't we have self-caused items popping out of nowhere? In fact, the only thing we do find that is self-caused is non-composite in nature - quantum particles.

A particle-antiparticle pair is composite - it is composed of two parts, a particle and an antiparticle.

That part is easy, because it already rains water.
Very good - bad phrasing on my part. You'd have to explain why toasters don't spontaneously appear out of nowhere in the sky. ;)

Your point on subatomic particles being the most basic of composition for everything is interesting.
Thank you.

However, with the introduction of so-called "string theory", is not everything connected? And if it is all connected, would it not make everything as part of a whole?
Simple response to this would be - is my computer a part of your computer? I think to that you'd answer no, but the two are connected.

And since it is a whole, it is no longer a composition of individual parts.
Ooooh - I'd disagree. You can have a whole human, but they still have individual parts (lungs, liver, kidneys, spleen, heart, etc). Same with a car, or a building, or anything else you'd care to name.

It is not can a composite part exist outside of its composite, but can a composite part exist without its composite.
Ahhhhhh. Very very interesting question. Very gutsy.
Let me ask you this then - can a video card exist without a computer? Or can a fan-belt exist without a car?

The point on hydrogen is very relevant. If it weren't for the most basic of elements, hydrogen, there would be nothing. Every element is essentially hydrogen energized with extra protons and electrons slapped on. While this may seem to support the idea that hydrogen is a composite part of the universe, thereby making the universe a composite; there is still the question of whether there would be hydrogen if there was no universe.
I see what you're saying, I've gotten into a similar argument with someone else... but the question you are asking isn't "can hydrogen exist without the universe?", what you're asking is "can hydrogen exist without space in which to exist?".
The argument I recall, that I was trying to counter, was that space (as in the dimension kind, not the vacuum kind) does not exist.
The answer to both is no... but I think I can salvage a point from my last post which is this - as long as there is something of the universe, the universe exists.

But now I'm holding mutually contradicting arguments here, arent I? If I say "if something exists, then the universe exists", then that means the universe comes into existance as soon as anything that's self-caused comes into existance.

I'll think on it and get back to you.

You say that it doesn't matter since the universe is an aggregate of all matter and energy. Well, hydrogen happens to be a aprt of that "aggregation". Since it has been stated that energy can neither be made or destroyed, does it not mean that subatomic particles are not "parts" of that "aggregation", but rather IS the "aggregation", in another form.
AH! Thank you kind sir - you've just handed me the answer to the dilemma of my previous argument. Conservation of energy.

As soon as the universe exists, it cannot build itself up anymore, by the fact that it has constricting laws of its own - including conservation of energy (which as you say, applies to matter as well, matter being an expression of energy).
Therefore, the universe still requires something external to break its rules to build it. So no, hydrogen cannot exist without space in which to exist, and defining space is the basic form of the universe, but the universe still cannot form itself.

If you want to break it down into the simplist terms of sub atmoics and energy, the universe is composed purely of energy. That energy can then be converted in matter and back, but still remains the same energy. Therefore, on that basis, the universe is made up of only one "part" - energy. And since there is only one "part", there is no composite.
I disagree with this statement, on the basis that if matter can be separated into specific parts (and thus be rendered composite), then so can energy.

This brings us back to my original claim that there is no God because there is no need for anythign else to fulfil the Godhood requirements:
- Must exist
- Must be unique
- Must be self-caused
- Must be the cause of everything else

The last point is debatable, since the universe is now not the cause of everything else, but rather, IS everything else.
Well I think I broke the self-caused line, which would suggest that the universe doesn't fulfill that claim.

What do you think? Am I quick on my feet or what?

If you want to break it down into the simplist terms of sub atmoics and energy, the universe is composed purely of energy. That energy can then be converted in matter and back, but still remains the same energy. Therefore, on that basis, the universe is made up of only one "part" - energy. And since there is only one "part", there is no composite.
I disagree with this statement, on the basis that if matter can be separated into specific parts (and thus be rendered composite), then so can energy.

Going back to metaphysics, it is a matter of identities, then. Everything that exists has a nature, identified in characteristics and traits. If we identify matter as having different characteristics from energy, then we have two entities; two components. Same with different wavelengths of energy.

Reasonabilityness --
Think straight, and honestly tell me, what are the odds of a planet with the same environment as earth being created? Don't give me that crap that we cant measure the odds...you believe that the probability of a planet capable of sustaining human life is high? Oh, that must be why we see oh so many planets capable of supporting human life =P. And also, you had alot of "We don't know"s in your response, yet you claim that you base your beliefs on the idea that there isnt enough scientific backing for religion? Interesting...

Reasonabilityness --
Think straight, and honestly tell me, what are the odds of a planet with the same environment as earth being created? Don't give me that crap that we cant measure the odds...you believe that the probability of a planet capable of sustaining human life is high? Oh, that must be why we see oh so many planets capable of supporting human life =P. And also, you had alot of "We don't know"s in your response, yet you claim that you base your beliefs on the idea that there isnt enough scientific backing for religion? Interesting...
The planet was not created for us.

It came first, we came second. We were created of a type able to live on it, not the other way around.

about the probablity of the planet being created this way, you gotta remember that, before life begin, the planet was already around for a couple of billion years, and the universe is still older then the earth; so the probabiliy of "BOOM - LIFE" is really small, but, you repeat the chances over a time spam of trillions of years in an "infinite" place like the universe. Really, sometime, somewhere, it just had to happen, it was impossible not to. (even if would take another 5 billion years)

Reasonabilityness --
Think straight, and honestly tell me, what are the odds of a planet with the same environment as earth being created? Don't give me that crap that we cant measure the odds...you believe that the probability of a planet capable of sustaining human life is high? Oh, that must be why we see oh so many planets capable of supporting human life =P. And also, you had alot of "We don't know"s in your response, yet you claim that you base your beliefs on the idea that there isnt enough scientific backing for religion? Interesting...

How the HELL am I supposed to know the odds of this particular planet existing? If I claimed they were high, that would be as much faith as claiming they're low. WE DON'T KNOW.

And, also - the planet was not made for us, as was pointed out. The question is not "What are the odds of a planet capable of supporting human life existing," it's "what are the odds of a planet capable of supporting any intellingent life existing" - because ANY intelligent life would look around and see how perfectly the surroundings fit it (or, rather, fit the surroundings.)

I don't think I, or for that matter anyond else, is qualified to judge the odds of some form of intellingent life appearing is.

I firmly believe that humans don't know much at all. The universe is, once we get outside the normal scales that we're used to, a frickin weird place. As such, I'm inclined to believe that most ideas humans come up with to explain the universe will most likely be wrong.

And hence, science is a process of weeding out all the wrong ones that seem reasonable enough for people to believe they're right. Hence the demands for something to be provable/disprovable - sure it's possible to come up with a theory that seems to explain everything, but how would we know if we're wrong? How can we check that we're not completely off?

Which is why I'm skeptical of religion, which claims to know the absolute truth but can't provide any way to test it. Seems to me like people just thought up of something that "seemed like it's right."

I'm equally distrustful about people who claim to know how the universe started from a scientific perspective, because since we know that all the current laws of physics we have aren't right at the ridiculously extreme conditions that the big bang theory says existed in the beginning.

Or, for that matter, people who claim to know how life on earth started, the various theories of abiogenesis - there are plenty of hypotheses, but though many of them SOUND very reasonable and it's very tempting to say "this is the way it was," but I'm inclined to think that people who are that certain are probably wrong, since they don't have proof or evidence.

And so on and so forth.

I'm most confident that we know how the world works in situations where several different branches of science lead us to the same conclusion; and most skeptical of theories that have yet to make any testable predictions or explanation.

I would MUCH rather admit that "we don't know" rather than trying to claim we do, merely based on the fact that "well, it seems right, and you can't disprove it."

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

Prove he doesn't

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.

Also do you want to take the chance taht god will be angry with you atheests and sent you to hell?

Jesus was the living son of god. Our Lord and Savior. That's all the proof you need.

Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?

1. to promote our species.
2. what if he doesn't exist? then do you want to waist your life?
3. there was no such person, if there was he was a crazy idiot.
4. the big bang.

1. to promote our species.
2. what if he doesn't exist? then do you want to waist your life?
3. there was no such person, if there was he was a crazy idiot.
4. the big bang.
If only Jesussaves were still here. :(

If only Jesussaves were still here. :(

he mispells allot of things, doesn't he?

It's up to each individual to make this determination for themselves. But
you must remember just because you think God, Jesus, & the Holy Sprit
doesn't exist ... it doesn't make it true. I guarantee you they do ... NOW
I want you to prove me wrong.

It's up to each individual to make this determination for themselves. But
you must remember just because you think God, Jesus, & the Holy Sprit
doesn't exist ... it doesn't make it true. I guarantee you they do.

how can you?

I want you to prove me wrong.
*sigh*
The burden of proof lies on the claimant.

how can you?

Because I have a relationship with Jesus. Because he healed my eyes when
the Doctors said there was NO hope. Because I have seen him heal others
through prayer. I KNOW he exists, there is nothing you can say that will
change that.

*sigh*
The burden of proof lies on the claimant.

You are the claimant ... you claim he doesn't exist. So prove it.

Because I have a relationship with Jesus. Because he healed my eyes when
the Doctors said there was NO hope. Because I have seen him heal others
through prayer. I KNOW he exists, there is nothing you can say that will
change that.

Well, i KNOW there is no such thing as a god, so i guess we're at a stalemate, neither of us will be able to prove to the other our points.

3. there was no such person, if there was he was a crazy idiot.
4. the big bang.

3. Actually he did exist.
4. Who/what caused the big bang?

You are the claimant ... you claim he doesn't exist. So prove it.
No, I claim nothing.
You have made the error of assuming I am an atheist. I am agnostic, I don't claim to know whether or not God exists.

Having said that, the Christian God has been described as "above human logic" by some people, and assuming that is true, a disproof is impossible by definition.

at the dawn of man, religion was created to explain unexplainable things like rain, fire, sun etc. and now we think hahaha a sun god thats so stupid so whats the differance between a sun god and our gods? arent they the same idea? just mans creation to explain nature's doings

Perhaps you should read St. Thomas Aquinas' book where he proves the existence of a God, using logic and reason. Maybe you can get some "serious" answers there.

He send his sign in the world, for anyone willing to search. Open your eyes, your mind and your ears to God's sign, looking aroung you, and you find it...

3. Actually he did exist.
4. Who/what caused the big bang?

4. the collision of two membranes(universes)

No, I claim nothing.
You have made the error of assuming I am an atheist. I am agnostic, I don't claim to know whether or not God exists.

Having said that, the Christian God has been described as "above human logic" by some people, and assuming that is true, a disproof is impossible by definition.

I made no assumption ... you are posting in this thread which premotes
the idea that God/ Jesus/Holy Sprit doesn't exist. If you don't agree that
they exists ... then you are saying you question their existance. I know
he exist and have told you why ... so the bueden of proof is on you. Again
I say ... Prove he doesn't!

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

Prove to me that He doesn't.

4. the collision of two membranes(universes)
I thought there was only one universe...

I thought there was only one universe...

depends on which theory

Prove to me that He doesn't.

I know he does, I am not required to prove it to you. God only requires me to speak to you of his existance, his love for you and his wish that no man be unsaved ... but he also gives you free will ... so it is up to you to make your own determination. The results of your decision determines if you can be saved.

I challenge anyone seriously willing*! Prove the existence of God, using this forum and your wits alone, to a heathen such as myself.

well... i cant prove god exists. i believe there is a god through what ive seen and heard and through faith, even though that wont change many peoples minds on if they believe or not. but me trying to prove that theres a god is like asking me if the earth started by evolution. despite evidence, its all unproven, but people still belive in it. its just stuff that no one can comprehend.

read the bible
:fluffle: :mp5: :D :sniper:

Santa Barbara I know he does, I am not required to prove it to you. God only requires me to speak to you of his existance, his love for you and his wish that no man be unsaved ... but he also gives you free will ... so it is up to you to make your own determination. The results of your decision determines if you can be saved.

Answer me this, if God exists... why oh why did he make Dinosaurs?! Whats going on there?!

Answer me this, if God exists... why oh why did he make Dinosaurs?! Whats going on there?!

He could answer that much better then I ... prayer works wonders.

I think of it this way... Even if god does exist (little 'g', you'll see why), he is no more deserving of our blind worship and all-encompassing devotion than your run-of-the-mill lunatic.

Think of it like this: If there is a god, all reasoning people must agree he is either grossly incompetant, and therefore not worthy of worship, Or a mean, vendictive @#%@#.

Afterall, how could a "kind and benevolent god" allow the kind of attrocities we witness on a daily basis? And don't give me that "it's all part of his divine plan" routine, because I counter with "Why would a loving god create such a heartless plan?"

Because if God doesnt' exist then theirs not any reason to love one another. We might as well start raping and robbing each other.

Except for maybe the fact that as humans, we have a little something called "reason" which allows us to make informed choices with our lives, such as not randomly raping each other on the street. I dunno where you god bogglers get off always thinking that we non believers are always on the prowl for some unwilling ass, but please, get over it.

Also do you want to take the chance taht god will be angry with you atheests and sent you to hell?

As apposed to being stuck in dry heaven with you obnoxious lot of tea totalers? No thanx, I'll take the all night party in hell anytime.

Jesus was the living son of god. Our Lord and Savior. That's all the proof you need.

Actually, Jesus was a person, a remarkable person who was way ahead of his time at that, but none the less, still a person. He was the son of ordinary human beings, just like we all were.

Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?

Check out "M" theory for an interesting, and very possible, theory on the creation of the universe:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

What are the odds of a god appearing out of nowhere? Ah, but since you can't apply the restraints of time to God, the point is moot.

As apposed to being stuck in dry heaven with you obnoxious lot of tea totalers? No thanx, I'll take the all night party in hell anytime. Er… given the amount of Catholics that would probably be in heaven… teetotal? I think not.

People always say that Hell would be better, but I fail to see how burning thingies up the wossname is better.

Ah, but since you can't apply the restraints of time to God, the point is moot.

then you just provided proof that god doesn't exist.

I think of it this way... Even if god does exist (little 'g', you'll see why), he is no more deserving of our blind worship and all-encompassing devotion than your run-of-the-mill lunatic.

Think of it like this: If there is a god, all reasoning people must agree he is either grossly incompetant, and therefore not worthy of worship, Or a mean, vendictive @#%@#.

Afterall, how could a "kind and benevolent god" allow the kind of attrocities we witness on a daily basis? And don't give me that "it's all part of his divine plan" routine, because I counter with "Why would a loving god create such a heartless plan?" Hmm… most people I know grew out of this argument many years ago… before double digits. It's not due to his plan, it's due to US. Read the Bible, it tells you why the human state is imperfect.

Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?

Where did God come from to create a God to create everything?

Personally i dont have enough faith to believe in any God that is worshipped by mankind. There are too many chances to pick the wrong one in my opinion. How can we as humans, who have time and time again proved ourselves fallable, believe ourselves to have found the true God(s). I do however believe that there must be some sort of spiritual being/force behind all that we know today. I dont have proof of this but i base my belief on the simple fact that i cannot comprehend a beginning to everything that exists. People may quote evolution as proof that there is no God but where do all of the atoms, etc necessary for this to occur come from?? The simplest way to explain my thinking is this:

Think of the most distant point you can in the history of existance.

Now ask yourself where the matter , energy or whatever that allowed this to occur came from.

If you keep asking yourself this about each step back you eventually come to the conclusion that you cannot comprehend a time before time. Everything must come from something and for me that something is a spiritual being/energy that i could never hope to be able to understand.

I hope that this makes even a little sense as it is very difficult for me to truly express why i feel as i do but hopefully someone will understand what point i am trying to make.

It's my person belief that faith is something you either have or don't have. You can't convince someone that there is a God if they don't believe in a God, and you can't convince someone that there isn't a God if they believe in a God (Also this one just isn't cool. Shattering people's faith is never nice. I'm an agnostic, but I hate athiests who try to convince people who there is no God. I personally wish I believed [that's one of the reasons I say I'm agnostic... besides practising Catholicism when I don't really believe in it). Look inward, not outward for faith because outward evidence won't truly convince anyone. You can all weigh those pros and cons, but in the end you'll have the same answer: We don't know. I don't think there's any sure way of knowing. You may personally feel like you know whether there is or isn't one. You have to have faith in belief there isn't one or faith there is one, and faith is something I don't have. From my perspective athiesm is the only logical stance, because you can't prove anything.

See you can't do it without saying god was just there, which is physically impossible. Nothing can be "just there" without it being created. Besides, how could one man create and look after everything in this world, No brain or computer in existance could create that, every brain in the world could not create the world. so how could one. Again its physically impossible. religion was invented by people around before the stone age, don't you think we've advanced a bit since then, and realised things.

Where did evrything come from if thers no god to create it?

Where did God come from to create a God to create everything?

the first question can be answered by quantum physics, things apear and dissapear completely randomly.

here's an interesting quote for all you non-believers:

"people say they need to see it to believe it, but really, if you believe it, you will see it"

i'm completely ignorant about quantum physics. Just wondering if it explains how time began. This will probably be shown to be a stupid question but what can you expect from a dumb guy

the first question can be answered by quantum physics, things apear and dissapear completely randomly.

No, nothing appears and disappears randomly, reactions happen and things look like they have disappeared, they have expanded during explosion and been blown apart into small molecules that are impossible to see, but they never disappear, for one atom to be destroyed would cause nuclear fission. and thats explosion, which is still rapid expansion of a material. so nothing can ever disapper.

No, nothing appears and disappears randomly, reactions happen and things look like they have disappeared, they have expanded during explosion and been blown apart into small molecules that are impossible to see, but they never disappear, for one atom to be destroyed would cause nuclear fission. and thats explosion, which is still rapid expansion of a material. so nothing can ever disapper.

that's only in traditional physics

that's only in traditional physics

All types of physics are the same, the universe follows a set of rules called physical laws, these laws cannot be broken. it is impossible to break these laws, and one of the law is that no material can disappear. if that were possible it would cause a huge implosion and a black hole would be created sucking all the know world into it.

Get my point, even if it was possible, it would't be advisable.

All types of physics are the same, the universe follows a set of rules called physical laws, these laws cannot be broken. it is impossible to break these laws, and one of the law is that no material can disappear. if that were possible it would cause a huge implosion and a black hole would be created sucking all the know world into it.

no, i'll find a resource on quantum physics and show you the link, one moment

i'm waiting for this link.

See you can't do it without saying god was just there, which is physically impossible. Nothing can be "just there" without it being created.

you might as well say "theres no universe because it was just there". we all know theres a universe, but if you really believe what you said, then what created the universe? if you say "the big bang", then what created the atom for the big bang and so on and so forth? theres too much physically and nonphysically that we humans still dont understand.

no, i'll find a resource on quantum physics and show you the link, one moment

here's it, it touches on the subject, but isn't exactly what i'm talking about.

Ooh, religious debate. Should I take the bait? Should I join and wrack my brain so as to do absolutely nothing to the opinions of geeky, 30-year-old gamers in their mothers' basements? Should I delve into the strange areas of grey thought and unknown horizons? For the sake of fun?

Okay.

So, someone tell me, what's going on here? What are we currently debating about. I know what the original subject was, but debates morph over time, especially if they're longer than 10 pages and constantly updated.