NationStates Jolt Archive

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?
atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?

Don't say that there is no god. That would be off-topic.

One of my arguments is:
god=universe. I mean, theists say that god created everything and scientists say that the universe created everything(supplied the suppliea and the means).

You can't prove he doesn't exist.

Here's the only "argument" for God I accept: "I believe."

There is no logical argument in favour of God. It's all faith... that kind of the point...

There are no conclusive arguements for either. If anyone can find one, i'll be most pleased you disproved god ;p The CLOSEST arguement would be one defending gods seeming uncaringness with world events.

Children in africa starve.
God lets it happen to inspire our souls to become more good.

Of course this is wrong, but it ALmost works

atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?

Could you elaborate on the question please?:confused:

There are no conclusive arguements for either. If anyone can find one, i'll be most pleased you disproved god ;p The CLOSEST arguement would be one defending gods seeming uncaringness with world events.

Children in africa starve.
God lets it happen to inspire our souls to become more good.

Of course this is wrong, but it ALmost works
You cant disprove God, just as you cant disprove that E only equals MCsqd because a magical box is making it so and that that box will disintegrate in 2 years irrevocably shattering the laws of physics and causing the end of the universe. That is why the burden of proof rests with the proposition, and that is why religion shouldnt try to have anything to do with science or logical argument.

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?


There is no persuasive universal argument for a higher being. My faith is mostly based on my own experiences of God. I am aware that all experiences of this kind can be explained without god via psychology, power of positive thinking, coincidence, etc. But when I put them together I am forced to assume that either God is there, or there is something seriously wrong with my brain. If there is something seriously wrong with my brain there is not much use in me trying to reason about these things so I may as well assume God.

Experiences include:

Doing better in the exam I prayed about than in the ones I actually revised for ;) .
Being so aware of the presence of God that I couldn't stand or speak.
When I prayed for a friend and I thought God told me to send them some money (which I did anonymously). Then later I found out via a mutual friend that the person in question had been struggling to make ends meet and some money had appeared out of the blue.
Praying for someone's injured knee and it got better.

There's plenty more but I know the nature of these forums and expect to have these experiences explained away (like I said) or I'll be called a liar (or both). This is the explanation for my faith and I wouldn't expect anyone to convert because of it.

You cant disprove God, just as you cant disprove that E only equals MCsqd because a magical box is making it so and that that box will disintegrate in 2 years irrevocably shattering the laws of physics and causing the end of the universe. That is why the burden of proof rests with the proposition, and that is why religion shouldnt try to have anything to do with science or logical argument.

I agree. Why is it that people feel the need to 'prove' their god? If your god can be proven or disproven with science, your god isn't a very good god.

Religion and science ARE NOT THE SAME. Religion has no place in science and science has no place in religion. Mixing them demeans them both.

The best argument for God is personal experience.

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?
Oh! Good question.

The best argument I have found for god was buried in mythological theory: that gods are literary symbols, parts of a story (which in turn is part of a greater story that is the "life" of a conscious person) that represent parts of our psyche, or reflections of our "self" (whether individual or collective). That's why I don't object when people call gods "figments of imagination" or "story-book characters" --that doesn't detract at all from the use of the symbol to represent something more significant.

That said, the idea of gods being symbols means there may very well be something to symbolise. I am agnostic theist --I do believe that there is something significant to represent, but I cannot say what it is. Well okay, I could say, but...

You can't prove he doesn't exist.
thats your best answer???

How do you explain how we went from nothing to something. How did the original universe start. In the beginning there was NOTHING, then there was SOMETHING; who/what cosmic force caused that?

How do you explain how we went from nothing to something. How did the original universe start. In the beginning there was NOTHING, then there was SOMETHING; who/what cosmic force caused that?
Maybe it always was.

Wotan's stark fist will smite me if I fail to believe.


Seriously though, here's the watertightest defense of God I can muster.

If God is responsible for the creation of the universe (read: Everything that exists), his presence must be detatched from the universe. God exists in the metaphysical part of existence which is not part of the universe (the "place" where all the stuff which doesn't exist goes). In practical terms, this means that God doesn't have a physical existence. He can't interact with the universe using the laws of physics. But He's there, outside the universe, in the part of existence where the non-existent exists.

Well, if the Devil is in the Details, then God must be in the Generalisations.

There are some arguments that I think are good, such as:
god=universe
god lives just outside the universe
I believe, so he exists. You don't, so he doesn't
If you think that matter and energy always existed, then why do you have to ask who created god? He always existed, so stfu.

god lives just outside the universe
That is one I have never understood: if the universe is everything, then what is he "outside" of?

Doing better in the exam I prayed about than in the ones I actually revised for ;) .

sounds like luck or cheating

Being so aware of the presence of God that I couldn't stand or speak.

the flu


When I prayed for a friend and I thought God told me to send them some money (which I did anonymously). Then later I found out via a mutual friend that the person in question had been struggling to make ends meet and some money had appeared out of the blue.

THIS IS GOD. PLEASE =SEND FUNKY EVIL SOME MOOLAH


Praying for someone's injured knee and it got better.

that usually happens with time.

but whatever

Im an athiest but have no problem with most of what religion in the US is about (giving to charity, getting off your ass and working harder, being nice to people, etc.). Of course, I don't like the stuff about being antifeminist and antigay, but that influence is declining quickly. That's why I don't go around "converting" people.

Still, everyone ignores the arguments about religious miracles. Some were really legitimate, and they probably did happen. If it wasn't for some of religion's logical inconsistencies and the the fact that some non-thiests can perform these amazing supernatural acts also, then I think I'd actually be a theist. But these miracles are very powerful arguments that really should be considered.

Also, you guys make it seem like there's no proof at all of God. That's just because almost everyone here is an atheist, and there's practically no really smart theists. So there's arguments out there, you just haven't seen them. www.atheism.org is a nice site with food for thought.

First off, let it be known that the theists are the ones making the assertion that "God" exists. Thus, the burden of proof lies upon them. I dare any theist to make the assertion and argument for God.

Firstly, if God is so high and mighty and detached from the universe, how would you, a lowly mortal, even be aware of "his" existance, let alone preach "his" doctrine and "his" word? Secondly, there is no scientific proof whatsoever to show that God actually exists; therefore, the assertion that God exists is automatically flawed (yes, you actually have to have at least some proof to make an assertion). Thirdly, if this God actually were to exist, and he was to be the paragon of morals, then why does he blow s*** up in the New and Old Testament? He goes against his own morals, thus rendering him and his teachings illogical and incoherent. As a follow-up, if he is unbound by his own laws, how can one consider this God holy and follow his teachings seriously when he does not follow his own rules? Fourthly, if all of these religious texts are supposedly true, but only a small percent of what they say have been confirmed, how can the entire text be trusted at all? Finally, if these religious texts are not saying things straight, then how can anyone say they have a correct interpretation with such a deceptive and objective intent woven into the words?

Any theist that can answer all of these questions to me will get my respect.

Didn't think so. Thanks for nothing, theists. You're all friggin' silly for believing that baseless propoganda and then causing all these wars and stuff.

If one of the cosmological constants, say Planck's or gravity, were to suddenly be adjusted or reset or somesuch, in a measurable, observable and recordable manner, that'd be a pretty strong argument for a creator of the universe.

If one of the cosmological constants, say Planck's or gravity, were to suddenly be adjusted or reset or somesuch, in a measurable, observable and recordable manner, that'd be a pretty strong argument for a creator of the universe.

Agreed. But even then, it might be some other natural phenomena, like the overlapping of universes or the like.

Once you understand that you are not this material body and your real identity is your soul (atma), everything else follows naturally. Atleast for me.

Once you understand that you are not this material body and your real identity is your soul (atma), everything else follows naturally. Atleast for me.

What is your proof? Certainly, you must have some sort of proof to come to this conclusion. If it really is believable and rational, then I'm sure you'd be eager to share it with us!

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?

Because God told us, on numerous occasions, of God's existence. If you choose not to listen, that is only your exercising the Free Will given by God.

*shrug*

To each.

There is no logical argument in favour of God. It's all faith... that kind of the point...
And what, exactly, does "faith" mean in this context?

Because God told us, on numerous occasions, of God's existence. If you choose not to listen, that is only your exercising the Free Will given by God.

*shrug*

To each.

Then you shouldn't mind answering my questions, now should you?
*points to reply #21*
Certainly, if this "God" told us, then you would have proof of this. We'd all be very interested to see it, and I'm sure you'd like to make us converts. Tell you what, if you answer my questions and prove that god exists, I'll convert to your religion. This is an admirable goal, no? And you surely would like to show us all how right you are. So I'm waiting.

And what, exactly, does "faith" mean in this context?

Asserting something is without substantial proof to back the assertion up.

Maybe it always was.


Consider the idea of the Universe in the beginning, we can only assume there was nothingness because we have no proof to the contrary and there was, it seems, one hell of a big explosion.

What if the truth is there was, and always had been, two things?

One matter, one antimatter.

As you may know, if a particle of matter touches a particle of antimatter the two destroy each other, creating quite the explosion.

So what if these two things were X amount of matter and Y amount of antimatter where X is greater than Y?

Well what we would get (if the two things collided) would be one hell of a big explosion which destroys (X-Y) of the matter and completely destroys Y.

The spare matter would then, theoretically, be thrown out, creating an expanding Universe which had perviously been stable at some miniscule level which we cannot properly define mathematically.

Then with the matter spreading and colliding with each other development of a sort takes place, various electron passing etc eventually leading to the development of stars and planets...until finally we're at the Universe we know.

Is that REALLY any more difficult to believe than the idea of an Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent being which is not part of our Universe yet still able to influence our Universe?

Certainly, if this "God" told us, then you would have proof of this. We'd all be very interested to see it, and I'm sure you'd like to make us converts. Tell you what, if you answer my questions and prove that god exists, I'll convert to your religion. This is an admirable goal, no? And you surely would like to show us all how right you are. So I'm waiting.

No ... converting you is not an admirable goal. As a matter of fact, I can't convert you. It is impossible. You must convert of your own Free Will. You must either choose to believe, or not to believe.

That's just how it works.

On unbelievers:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error." Qur'an 2:256

"If it had been Allah's will, they would not have taken false gods, but we made thee not one to watch over their doings, nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs. Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah." Qur'an 6:107-108

"Allah knows best the value of what you do." Qur'an 22:67

*shrug*

Like I said ... to each.

Consider the idea of the Universe in the beginning, we can only assume there was nothingness because we have no proof to the contrary and there was, it seems, one hell of a big explosion.

What if the truth is there was, and always had been, two things?

One matter, one antimatter.

As you may know, if a particle of matter touches a particle of antimatter the two destroy each other, creating quite the explosion.

So what if these two things were X amount of matter and Y amount of antimatter where X is greater than Y?

Well what we would get (if the two things collided) would be one hell of a big explosion which destroys (X-Y) of the matter and completely destroys Y.

The spare matter would then, theoretically, be thrown out, creating an expanding Universe which had perviously been stable at some miniscule level which we cannot properly define mathematically.

Then with the matter spreading and colliding with each other development of a sort takes place, various electron passing etc eventually leading to the development of stars and planets...until finally we're at the Universe we know.

Is that REALLY any more difficult to believe than the idea of an Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent being which is not part of our Universe yet still able to influence our Universe?

Except that the universe would have had to be nothing at all, and therefore there could be no matter or anti-matter. Do you have any idea how singularities work? The laws that govern the universe as we know it are not applicable within them. Therefore, time is considered "infinite" only because it reaches a singularity point, i.e. a limit. However, it actually does reach the limit, contrary to basic mathmatics, which is what a singularity, or a point in space with infinite mass and no volume, is. In a singularity, time-space does not exist, and therefore time becomes completely absent. It could have been a microsecond or a billion years before the singularity broke down into the "Big Bang", but since time does not exist within the singularity, it becomes moot. To quote Stephen Hawking, the one who proposed and refined this idea:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

From "The Beginning of Time", by Stephen Hawking

To learn more about the beginning of the universe, read Stephen Hawking's article here: http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html

Yeah, he has actual proof.

Therefore, nothing actually HAD to exist volume-wise for our universe to be created. And yes, it is much harder to believe in a God because Occam's Razor actually works. Look it up yourself, I've explained enough on singularities. In conclusion, God simply does not exist and cannot exist as theists say it/he/she does.

Therefore, nothing actually HAD to exist volume-wise for our universe to be created. And yes, it is much harder to believe in a God because Occam's Razor actually works. Look it up yourself, I've explained enough on singularities. In conclusion, God simply does not exist and cannot exist as theists say it/he/she does.

Why do you think belief in God precludes acceptance of scientific fact? Is there no room for both in your existence?

No ... converting you is not an admirable goal. As a matter of fact, I can't convert you. It is impossible. You must convert of your own Free Will. You must either choose to believe, or not to believe.

That's just how it works.

On unbelievers:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error." Qur'an 2:256

"If it had been Allah's will, they would not have taken false gods, but we made thee not one to watch over their doings, nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs. Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah." Qur'an 6:107-108

"Allah knows best the value of what you do." Qur'an 22:67

*shrug*

Like I said ... to each.

Exactly. You have no proof. Therefore, God does not exist. If he had an effect upon reality, it would be measurable by scientific methods. It is not. Therefore, God does not exist. You can blind yourself, and you're free to do that; but your credibility takes a hit.

In conclusion, God simply does not exist and cannot exist as theists say it/he/she does.


Shhh, I was trying to keep the complicated words to a minimum, partially because I'm tired and partially because most forums (especially "General" forums) are full of people who would just get confused and pass over the post. =P

I may have oversimplified the theory to the point where it seemed silly though.

theres no real arguement "for" god, just arguements against things that contradict it or make it obsolete.

Why do you think belief in God precludes acceptance of scientific fact? Is there no room for both in your existence?

You obviously did not read Occam's Razor. Basically, it says that out of two theories with equal proof, the simpler one is true. For example, you are standing in a field on a cloudy day and see a burnt and splintered tree. It thunderstormed the night before. Will you say that a bunch of aliens flew up to the tree, burnt it and chopped it up, covered all traces of their existance, and drove off without leaving tracks, or will you say that lightning struck the tree? It's a similar concept with god; believing in it is simply irrational and a waste of time.

Exactly. You have no proof. Therefore, God does not exist. If he had an effect upon reality, it would be measurable by scientific methods. It is not. Therefore, God does not exist. You can blind yourself, and you're free to do that; but your credibility takes a hit.

Not everything can be quantified or qualified. Scientifically prove that I love my children.

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Even Hawking allows for belief in God.

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?
atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?

Don't say that there is no god. That would be off-topic.

One of my arguments is:
god=universe. I mean, theists say that god created everything and scientists say that the universe created everything(supplied the suppliea and the means).

By the definition of a deity (i.e. supernatural), if it has an explanation it isn't God. If there's reasoning, logic, the very possibility of evidence or observation, it isn't supernatural, inexplicable, or universally/fundamentally unlimited, and therefore not the omni-everything supernatural deity posited by religion. Your question for atheists is an inherent self-contradiction, though the same is true for the very concept behind the term 'supernatural'....

the best agrument might be a first kiss

'and kisses are a better fate than wisdom' (E E Cummings)

You obviously did not read Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor is very much like Pascal's Wager. It only encounters the extremes and forgets all the other things in between.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one, and all things are never equal.

Perhaps the fact that we can even develop the idea of a supernatural power lends credence...

But otherwise, the best argument for is that there are no possible ways to definitely rule out the existence of God (although the same is true regarding arguments for God, but just play along:p )

You obviously did not read Occam's Razor. Basically, it says that out of two theories with equal proof, the simpler one is true. For example, you are standing in a field on a cloudy day and see a burnt and splintered tree. It thunderstormed the night before. Will you say that a bunch of aliens flew up to the tree, burnt it and chopped it up, covered all traces of their existance, and drove off without leaving tracks, or will you say that lightning struck the tree? It's a similar concept with god; believing in it is simply irrational and a waste of time.

Occam's razor doesn't say anything is true, or untrue. it's just a way to look at things, an aesthetic approach really, William of Occam was of course a devout Christian

Not everything can be quantified or qualified. Scientifically prove that I love my children.

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Even Hawking allows for belief in God.

First off, proving that you love your children would require an immense number of calculations of the chemistry and neurons in your body, which I am not willing to do. Also, "love" is not explicitly defined. But yes, it is possible.

Yes, Hawking does allow for belief in God. However, he also points out that in order for God to exist, he cannot have interfered in the universe as we know it, therefore making the worship of God as theists claim baseless and rendering the worshipping of God moot. To quote Stephen Hawking:only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not

"It is just that He doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science. That must be the position of every scientist. A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it intervene."

From "Does God Play Dice", by Stephen Hawking

There isn't necessarily a problem with a God existing; there is a problem with God existing the way theists say he does.

"If there's no God, then where did all this stuff come from?"

No idea.

Not everything can be quantified or qualified. Scientifically prove that I love my children.

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Even Hawking allows for belief in God.

what you say about love is to the point. a minor point though would be that the idea of your love is still falsifiable in scientific terms whereas the idea of god isn't and can't be

Occam's Razor is very much like Pascal's Wager. It only encounters the extremes and forgets all the other things in between.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one, and all things are never equal.

I never said that the simplest explaination is always the right one. I said that the simplest explaination out of a series of explainations with equal proof is correct. You honestly haven't read what Occam's Razor is yet, have you? Oh yeah, I would also refer you to the Chaos Theory, since that also ties in to all of this.

And you're partially right: all things are never equal, unless they meet at a singularity, where an infinite amount of matter is condensed into a zero-dimentional object. Ideas, however, can have proof that remains exactly the same; it just takes a hell of a lot of calculations.

Oh yes, and take a look at Pascal's Flaw. Lots of fun there.

Well then. Any more theists want to try their luck at besting this argument against God?

What is your proof? Certainly, you must have some sort of proof to come to this conclusion. If it really is believable and rational, then I'm sure you'd be eager to share it with us!

There is nothing that I can say here that is not said in Gita.

There is nothing that I can say here that is not said in Gita.

Then you wouldn't mind sharing, now would you? Come on, I'm waiting.

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?
atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?

Don't say that there is no god. That would be off-topic.

One of my arguments is:
god=universe. I mean, theists say that god created everything and scientists say that the universe created everything(supplied the suppliea and the means).

Moral Argument for the Existence of God:

1) There is a universally applicable, universally good moral law.
2) Moral law, unlike laws of nature, cannot happen on their own, and must be generated by a mind.
3) Only a universally good and knowledgeable mind could formulate a universally good, universally applicable moral law.
4) Only God fits the criteria for a universally good and knowledgeable mind.
5) God exists.

Reductio Ad Absurdum to prove initial premise in the Moral Argument:

1) Moral relativism is correct.
1a) Moral relativism: doctrine holding that no moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances.
2) The rule "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is correct.
3) If the rule "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is correct, it must be held true in all times and instances.
4) The rule "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" must be held true in all times and instances.
5) Moral relativism is logically incoherent.
6) Moral absolutism, or the belief that there is a moral rule that should be held universally applicable in all times and instances, is correct.

Moral Argument for the Existence of God:

1) There is a universally applicable, universally good moral law.
2) Moral law, unlike laws of nature, cannot happen on their own, and must be generated by a mind.
3) Only a universally good and knowledgeable mind could formulate a universally good, universally applicable moral law.
4) Only God fits the criteria for a universally good and knowledgeable mind.
5) God exists.

Reductio Ad Absurdum to prove initial premise in the Moral Argument:

1) Moral relativism is correct.
1a) Moral relativism: doctrine holding that no moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances.
2) The rule "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is correct.
3) If the rule "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is correct, it must be held true in all times and instances.
4) The rule "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" must be held true in all times and instances.
5) Moral relativism is logically incoherent.
6) Moral absolutism, or the belief that there is a moral rule that should be held universally applicable in all times and instances, is correct.

Austin Cline's Logical Argument Against God

1. God is morally perfect (premise)
2. Any act that God condones, commands, or causes is morally permissible or mandated (from 1)
3. Any act that God forbids is morally impermissible (from 1)
4. The Bible accurately reveals many acts condoned, commanded, or caused by God
5. In the Bible there are acts which God forbids but which God also condones, commands, or causes
6. It is incoherent for a morally perfect being to condone, command, or cause immoral acts
7. The God of the Bible is incoherent and, therefore, cannot exist.

Source: http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/immorality.htm

Austin Cline's Logical Argument Against God

1. God is morally perfect (premise)
2. Any act that God condones, commands, or causes is morally permissible or mandated (from 1)
3. Any act that God forbids is morally impermissible (from 1)
4. The Bible accurately reveals many acts condoned, commanded, or caused by God
5. In the Bible there are acts which God forbids but which God also condones, commands, or causes
6. It is incoherent for a morally perfect being to condone, command, or cause immoral acts
7. The God of the Bible is incoherent and, therefore, cannot exist.

Source: http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/immorality.htm

Where in my argument did I say anything about the inerrancy of the Bible? That is an implicit assumption (actually the implicit assumption) in your
argument: that the Bible is inerrantly correct, yet contains both affirmations and condemnations of specific actions. I won't dispute that, but it has no bearing on my post, because the existence of a universal moral law is not contingent upon anything the Bible says or does not say.

If God popped down from the sky to have a little visit with us, we'd have a good argument.

Where in my argument did I say anything about the inerrancy of the Bible? That is an implicit assumption (actually the implicit assumption) in your
argument: that the Bible is inerrantly correct, yet contains both affirmations and condemnations of specific actions. I won't dispute that, but it has no bearing on my post, because the existence of a universal moral law is not contingent upon anything the Bible says or does not say.

It's not reallly my argument, but I support it. Also:
"3) Only a universally good and knowledgeable mind could formulate a universally good, universally applicable moral law.
4) Only God fits the criteria for a universally good and knowledgeable mind.
5) God exists."

It is assumed that you are speaking of the Biblical version of God or some derivitive thereof. If so, then the Bible must be correct in its view and statements of God.

There are a few problems with your "Universally Good Law" logic. First off, "good" is not defined, nor is it proven to be a trait possessed by this "God". Second, God is not defined, which is why I assumed you were using a Biblical version of God or some derivitive thereof. Thirdly, "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is not a moral rule.

Nice try though.

1a) Moral relativism: doctrine holding that no moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances.
2) The rule "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is correct.

Oopsie! Try again.

So, any other takers, or is this the best you theists have?

meditation

meditation

Yeah, I meditate too. But I don't believe in Gods or supernatural forces or anything. And it still has the same effects on me. That doesn't even come close to proving that any Gods or supernatural forces exist, especially since there has been research done on meditation proving its LACK of unexplainability.

Yeah, I meditate too. But I don't believe in Gods or supernatural forces or anything. And it still has the same effects on me. That doesn't even come close to proving that any Gods or supernatural forces exist, especially since there has been research done on meditation proving its LACK of unexplainability.

I'm just saying, you gotta experience God to know of God, and there are no arguments that can prove or disprove God. If you haven't experienced God then there would be no excuse for you to believe aside from hope. I've experienced God so there is no doubt in my mind that the universe is conscious.

What effects has it had on you? How do you meditate? There are many ways to meditate. I never said it proves God exists, as individual experiences that cannot be shared are not proof.

I could really care less if you believe in God or not. It's your beliefs, have them as you will, they do not affect me.

What research proves a lack of unexplainability and what does that mean anyway?

It's not reallly my argument, but I support it. Also:
"3) Only a universally good and knowledgeable mind could formulate a universally good, universally applicable moral law.
4) Only God fits the criteria for a universally good and knowledgeable mind.
5) God exists."

It is assumed that you are speaking of the Biblical version of God or some derivitive thereof. If so, then the Bible must be correct in its view and statements of God.

There are a few problems with your "Universally Good Law" logic. First off, "good" is not defined, nor is it proven to be a trait possessed by this "God". Second, God is not defined, which is why I assumed you were using a Biblical version of God or some derivitive thereof. Thirdly, "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is not a moral rule.

Nice try though.

You've proven a lot less than you think you have. I'll admit, the reductio only allows for the existence of an absolute moral law, and not necessarily an absolutely good moral law. Nevertheless, the simple existence of a universal moral law necessitates the existence of a universally knowledgeable mind to derive it, and the only concept that fits that description is God. So you haven't defeated the argument, just showed that God has (or at least might have) one less absolute characteristic than was argued for in the above argument.

The other arguments, however, do not really amount to much. For one thing, God does not need to be defined; so long as omniscience is a precondition for an absolute moral law, that moral law exists, and only God is considered omniscient, then God must exist, and the fact that he is otherwise undefined matters little.

For another, I am not sure how your claim about the nature of a moral rule defeats the claim. Even if it is a purely descriptive (actually, it would be an a priori synthetic claim just like a moral claim, as in both cases they are proved through non-analytic reasoning independent of experience), of which I am not entirely sure that it is, it is still the case that argument clearly indicates that such a moral law must exist, if for no other reason than because the opposite is logically incoherent. If so, then God must exist as well.


Oopsie! Try again.

If it settles your semantic desire, then I'll fix it the proper way:

1a) Moral relativism: doctrine holding that no moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances.
2) The [u]doctrine[/i] "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is correct.

There you go.

If it settles your semantic desire, then I'll fix it the proper way:

1a) Moral relativism: doctrine holding that no moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances.
2) The doctrine "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is correct.

There you go.
Thanks. Now that that's been corrected let's correct the rest:

3) A doctrine is not a moral rule.
4) Therefore there's no universally applicable moral rule.

Thanks. Now that that's been corrected let's correct the rest:

3) A doctrine is not a moral rule.
4) Therefore there's no universally applicable moral rule.

You are going to have to be a little more clear then about what a doctrine is, because it seems to me that a doctrine is often synonymous with moral rule. Kant's categorical imperative is a moral rule, but it is also a doctrine. So is Jesus' positive form of the Golden Rule. In this case, the doctrine that there is no such thing as a universal moral rule is incorrect because it is logically incoherent: in order for there to be no moral rules, the non-existence of moral rules must be universal, and saying that there is no universal moral rule is (or at least with a very minimum of effort can be reformulated into) a universal moral rule.

You've proven a lot less than you think you have. I'll admit, the reductio only allows for the existence of an absolute moral law, and not necessarily an absolutely good moral law. Nevertheless, the simple existence of a universal moral law necessitates the existence of a universally knowledgeable mind to derive it, and the only concept that fits that description is God. So you haven't defeated the argument, just showed that God has (or at least might have) one less absolute characteristic than was argued for in the above argument.

The other arguments, however, do not really amount to much. For one thing, God does not need to be defined; so long as omniscience is a precondition for an absolute moral law, that moral law exists, and only God is considered omniscient, then God must exist, and the fact that he is otherwise undefined matters little.

For another, I am not sure how your claim about the nature of a moral rule defeats the claim. Even if it is a purely descriptive (actually, it would be an a priori synthetic claim just like a moral claim, as in both cases they are proved through non-analytic reasoning independent of experience), of which I am not entirely sure that it is, it is still the case that argument clearly indicates that such a moral law must exist, if for no other reason than because the opposite is logically incoherent. If so, then God must exist as well.



If it settles your semantic desire, then I'll fix it the proper way:

1a) Moral relativism: doctrine holding that no moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances.
2) The [u]doctrine[/i] "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is correct.

There you go.

LOL

I'm sorry, but I can't help laughing here. You see, when you prove an absolute moral law, it isn't defined. Anyone can twist it any which way. And so long as it can be interpreted differently, it means that the absolute moral rule disproves itself! Hehehehe!

Have you proven omniscence? I don't see that anywhere. If it's a preexisting condition, then you must have proof for it first. Then, since the absolute moral law disproves itself, it must disprove omnisence, since the absolute moral law cannot exist and therefore omnisence does not exist (assuming it's part of the argument and not a preexisting factor).

Not only does the lack of morals for God make him basically unholy and immoral (two of the things people will say makes God better than everyone else), it goes against the basic assumption that the Bible is correct, which forces the rest of the Bible to be questioned as a credible source.

Again, to quote myself:

""No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is not a moral rule."

You are going to have to be a little more clear then about what a doctrine is, because it seems to me that a doctrine is often synonymous with moral rule. Kant's categorical imperative is a moral rule, but it is also a doctrine. So is Jesus' positive form of the Golden Rule. In this case, the doctrine that there is no such thing as a universal moral rule is incorrect because it is logically incoherent: in order for there to be no moral rules, the non-existence of moral rules must be universal, and saying that there is no universal moral rule is (or at least with a very minimum of effort can be reformulated into) a universal moral rule.

*explodes*

You are going to have to be a little more clear then about what a doctrine is, because it seems to me that a doctrine is often synonymous with moral rule. Kant's categorical imperative is a moral rule, but it is also a doctrine. So is Jesus' positive form of the Golden Rule. In this case, the doctrine that there is no such thing as a universal moral rule is incorrect because it is logically incoherent: in order for there to be no moral rules, the non-existence of moral rules must be universal, and saying that there is no universal moral rule is (or at least with a very minimum of effort can be reformulated into) a universal moral rule.
A doctrine is a set of beliefs or thoughts concerning what's true or false.
Moral concerns itself with right or wrong. A moral rule, therefore, describes right and wrong.
Of course, moral rules make up doctrines, but not all doctrines are made of moral rules.

You can't prove he doesn't exist.
Well, strictly you can't prove anything except the ideas (you can only prove the ideas themselves) of what you see, imaginem, hear and feel and the only person you can prove it to is yourself.

But back on topic. If there is a God that created the world, who created god? And who created the one that created god etc. Who is responsible for the creation of the world? Or maybe time itself goes in some unexplainable and inunderstandable circle. I think humans will never be able to understand these things. We can try to convince ourselves that we understand the world through faith, but faith is IMO only a postponation of understanding.

LOL

I'm sorry, but I can't help laughing here. You see, when you prove an absolute moral law, it isn't defined. Anyone can twist it any which way. And so long as it can be interpreted differently, it means that the absolute moral rule disproves itself! Hehehehe!

Have you proven omniscence? I don't see that anywhere. If it's a preexisting condition, then you must have proof for it first. Then, since the absolute moral law disproves itself, it must disprove omnisence, since the absolute moral law cannot exist and therefore omnisence does not exist (assuming it's part of the argument and not a preexisting factor).

Not only does the lack of morals for God make him basically unholy and immoral (two of the things people will say makes God better than everyone else), it goes against the basic assumption that the Bible is correct, which forces the rest of the Bible to be questioned as a credible source.

Again, to quote myself:

""No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is not a moral rule."

Why is that the case, however? Both that statement and any moral statement, such as "You should never strangle your sister" share certain similarities. Both are derived not from experience or the meanings of terms, but from logical reasoning. Both carry the form of a normative statement, and describe what we ought to hold as true about the universe. Both use language that implies that there is never an exception to the rule. So why is it that one is a moral rule and the other isn't?

As for the rest of your arguments, I don't find them particularly difficult. Firstly, the argument that you can twist a moral rule is true, but its purely a descriptive claim that says nothing about whether you ought to twist the moral rule, or whether it ought to be held correct. The fact that people can twist Jesus' teachings to do things that are completely contrary to his teachings says little about the veracity of his teachings, for instance, and in point of fact the whole use of words like "twist" imply that there is a single privileged and "true" understanding of how Jesus meant what he said, and equally implies that people are not following this privileged view. The fact that there is a privileged view of the world hardly augers against a privileged view of morality.

Secondly, I don't prove omniscience. I only prove that an absolute moral law necessitates an omniscient being to create it. In that the moral law does exist, omniscience by extension must exist as well, as instantiated in the being that has that property.

Thirdly, I'm trying to argue for the existence of God, not the existence of the God as specifically outlined by a sequence of Jewish and Christian thinkers from B.C. 700 to A.D. 200, so I really don't have a problem with the view that the Bible isn't a credible source. While I do think that Jesus had a number of very informative things to say, I base that opinion on reasoning and logic, not on the inerrancy of the Bible.


A doctrine is a set of beliefs or thoughts concerning what's true or false.
Moral concerns itself with right or wrong. A moral rule, therefore, describes right and wrong.
Of course, moral rules make up doctrines, but not all doctrines are made of moral rules.

Nevertheless, it goes without saying that any right moral view is also correct as applied to the world; i.e. any view that is moral is also true. Any right moral view is therefore also a doctrine, specifically, a correct one, and any wrong moral view is an incorrect doctrine. So my use of the word may have been a bit sloppy, but it wasn't incorrect.

Prove that "You should never strangle your sister" is a logical statement. I DARE you.

By twisting, I only mean that one can come up with an original idea, and then have it changed by another person. After all, if moral ideas were to spring up exactly at the same time in the universe, that would make little sense since time can (theoretically) be divvied up into infinite partitions. Besides, an "original" idea is objective; what is twisted to you may be different to what is twisted to me.

Again, the absolute moral law is completely unproven. To again quote myself:
""No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is not a moral rule."

While it is a doctrine, it is not a doctrine in the manner you are using it. Here's the definition of a "doctrine":
"1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy."
From Dictionary.com

While the "No moral rule should be held universally applicable in all times and instances" is a doctrine, it is one that happens to be judgemental. A more appropriate doctrine (one that isn't related to morals) is "No moral rule can be held universally applicable in all times and instances". You were right that your statement was a moral, but that turns out to be an intrinsic flaw; the doctrine you posted makes a judgement, which is not a scientific statement. Therefore, it is only an opinion, and not a real doctrine held by any official organization. The new doctrine that I have created based upon yours does work; by removing the judgement and stopping the self-imposed moralistic nature of the statement, it becomes a logical and ultimately correct doctrine.

The existance of "God" requires "God" to be defined. If there is no "God" defined, then there is no way that it can be proven, since it remains undefined. Perhaps if you defined what you consider "God" to be, then this whole Judeo-Christian-Bible thing could be resolved.

Under the assumption that any moral view is right, and because the law of morals does not have a moral view defined, all morals instantly become moral, negating the logic of an absolute moral (because it includes the moral of saying there's not a moral). Therefore, absolute moral is irrational and impossible.

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?
atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?

Don't say that there is no god. That would be off-topic.

One of my arguments is:
god=universe. I mean, theists say that god created everything and scientists say that the universe created everything(supplied the suppliea and the means).

The fact that I'm still alive means that God exists.

The fact that I'm still alive means that God exists.

And your logic behind that would be...?

As his one and only begotten Son, I would have to argue that yes, God does exist. Otherwise, how would I be here?

As his one and only begotten Son, I would have to argue that yes, God does exist. Otherwise, how would I be here?

LOL

Because the Virgin Mary wasn't a virgin! ;)

If something can't be proven, it is irrelevant.

If something can't be proven, it is irrelevant.

Exactly. The theists are the ones making the assertion; now they have to prove it. If they can't, logic says that they're completely wrong.

LOL

Because the Virgin Mary wasn't a virgin! ;)

What did you say about my mama??!!!

Exactly. The theists are the ones making the assertion; now they have to prove it. If they can't, logic says that they're completely wrong.
And...if you can't prove that God doesn't exist...then you're wrong yourself by your own standards?

Yeah, no. No.

What did you say about my mama??!!!

LOL

Not half as much as she said in bed last night! :p
I'd like to bisect her angle again!

In any case, what does proof have to do with anything, really?

I doubt anyone was able to prove that the world was round in 1 A.D., didn't mean that it was wrong.

Science has its limits. It cannot prove nor disprove God. To be able to claim that your side is the superior and logical side is neither superior nor logical, rather it is bullshit.

And...if you can't prove that God doesn't exist...then you're wrong yourself by your own standards?

Yeah, no. No.

????

Can you clarify your statement? I do not understand what you're trying to say.

And...if you can't prove that God doesn't exist...then you're wrong yourself by your own standards?

Yeah, no. No.

it doesn't matter if there is a god or not. events unfold as they will. nobody is gonna stop bad things from happening to you and nobody is going to make good things happen to you.

In any case, what does proof have to do with anything, really?

I doubt anyone was able to prove that the world was round in 1 A.D., didn't mean that it was wrong.

Science has its limits. It cannot prove nor disprove God. To be able to claim that your side is the superior and logical side is neither superior nor logical, rather it is bullshit.

Why is it not more logical? It uses the standard scientific method. Does that happen with proving God? Not at all. Not believing is not only more logical, but is correct (see Occam's Razor).

As per your arguments, there really is a God. In fact, I was just talking to Dad a few minutes ago. He sends his regards. By the way, he mentioned that everyone in this thread will probably go to hell. Thought you ought to know.

As per your arguments, there really is a God. In fact, I was just talking to Dad a few minutes ago. He sends his regards. By the way, he mentioned that everyone in this thread will probably go to hell. Thought you ought to know.

W007! Tell your dad to send beer and babes! He's supposed to be all generous and stuff, so he shouldn't mind!

Why is it not more logical? It uses the standard scientific method. Does that happen with proving God? Not at all. Not believing is not only more logical, but is correct (see Occam's Razor).
Okay. Tell me the steps of the scientific method you used to determine that God doesn't exist.

Okay. Tell me the steps of the scientific method you used to determine that God doesn't exist.

1. There is no accepted proof that God exists
2. Logic states that anything that is not proven is not true
3. God is not proven because there is no proof of God
4. God cannot be true because God is not proven
5. God cannot exist because God is not true

W007! Tell your dad to send beer and babes! He's supposed to be all generous and stuff, so he shouldn't mind!

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness; they will be satisfied

Those who hunger and thirst for beer and babes shall be satisfied as well. Do not worry, you shall receive your reward.

Those who hunger and thirst for beer and babes shall be satisfied as well. Do not worry, you shall receive your reward.

SWEEEEET!!! Send a big thanks to your daddy-o!

First Cause is probably the one that convinces most people.

Also, the argument from agnosticism, i.e. "You can't prove god doesn't exist"

First Cause is probably the one that convinces most people.

Also, the argument from agnosticism, i.e. "You can't prove god doesn't exist"

Main problem with First Cause: It overlaps itself. Something must have caused God.

"1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing."

By this, the universe cannot ever exist. However, when you put singularities in the equation (zero-dimentional objects with infinite mass), it actually fits quite nicely into this. God does not have to exist for the universe to be created.

Offline for now. I'll be back tomorrow! Come on people, try to get some decent arguments out here!

What about the argument "Fuck off"?

However, when you put singularities in the equation (zero-dimentional objects with infinite mass), it actually fits quite nicely into this.

Zero-dimentional objects with infinite mass, huh? Hmmmm... Sounds kind of like it could be a description of GOD! Try chewing on that one for a while.

Zero-dimentional objects with infinite mass, huh? Hmmmm... Sounds kind of like it could be a description of GOD! Try chewing on that one for a while.

And in the beginning, God exploded... :eek:

Zero-dimentional objects with infinite mass, huh? Hmmmm... Sounds kind of like it could be a description of GOD! Try chewing on that one for a while.

Who didn't see this one coming? There's nothing to chew on. Do you know what a zero-dimensional object is?

And in the beginning, God exploded... :eek:

The end.

So either I am right, and God doesn't exist, or "God is dead". Works for me. :p

I'm leaving now. Dad doesn't need to explain himself to you guys. Besides, I've got souls to save. Goodbye.

First off, proving that you love your children would require an immense number of calculations of the chemistry and neurons in your body, which I am not willing to do. Also, "love" is not explicitly defined. But yes, it is possible.

Right, then. If you run a calculation taking into account the exact position, state and velocity of all particles in the universe, the answer will be proof of God's existence. It's easy enough to do - you just need a computer containing all of the mass in the universe (and possibly more) and a way to bypass the Uncertainty Principle. But if you're really interested, you'll be willing to do that.

No?

I never said that the simplest explaination is always the right one. I said that the simplest explaination out of a series of explainations with equal proof is correct.

No. The simplest explanation out of a series of explanations with equal proof is most likely to be correct. For example, with no knowledge of where I live, the simplest explanation would be to say that the majority of the English-speaking world resides in the United States, therefore I am in the US. This would be completely incorrect, as I'm in England.

1. There is no accepted proof that God exists
2. Logic states that anything that is not proven is not true
3. God is not proven because there is no proof of God
4. God cannot be true because God is not proven
5. God cannot exist because God is not true

(Emphasis mine)

Enter the scientist... nothing is proven. Therefore, your argument dictates that nothing is true. In fact, this entire thread is asking for something that is impossible - scientifically, you can never prove anything. You can just fail to disprove it.

As for an argument as to why God probably exists... 'fraid I can't help you there. I can explain how he could (although doing so involves at least six dimensions), but that's from observation, not theoretical.

Main problem with First Cause: It overlaps itself. Something must have caused God.

"1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing."

By this, the universe cannot ever exist. However, when you put singularities in the equation (zero-dimentional objects with infinite mass), it actually fits quite nicely into this. God does not have to exist for the universe to be created.

Yeah, I completely agree. I think Bertrand Russell put away the first cause argument rather handily in his "Why I am not a christian" essay.` But I think that first cause is the most accepted reason of why people believe in god.

Wotan's stark fist will smite me if I fail to believe.


Seriously though, here's the watertightest defense of God I can muster.

If God is responsible for the creation of the universe (read: Everything that exists), his presence must be detatched from the universe. God exists in the metaphysical part of existence which is not part of the universe (the "place" where all the stuff which doesn't exist goes). In practical terms, this means that God doesn't have a physical existence. He can't interact with the universe using the laws of physics. But He's there, outside the universe, in the part of existence where the non-existent exists.
Actually, if he existed on a higher plane, as you suggest, he could interact with our universe but never be wholly contained within it. But something must always have existed. I think you are most right with your first statement, though. Mighty Wotan shall certainly smite you. :sniper: But not I, for I will be rewarded for my devotion to the old ways.

I cannot totally disprove God, just make his nature seem a bit... dubious, shall we say?

In most traditions, God knows all (past, present, and future) and can act in any way. The problem with this is that these two are kind of pointless when put next to each other. If God knows everything that is going to happen and chooses to act on it, he already knows what he is going to act on and if he'll change his mind. Hence, God seems kind of pointless.

Salaam.

1. There is no accepted proof that God exists
2. Logic states that anything that is not proven is not true
3. God is not proven because there is no proof of God
4. God cannot be true because God is not proven
5. God cannot exist because God is not true
:rolleyes:

I respect the belief of atheists and don't try to prove them wrong, but arguments from individuals like this aren't the reason why. I rather try to convince them that neither my beliefs nor their beliefs are entirely provable.

Yet arguments like this...sheesh.

Im an athiest but have no problem with most of what religion in the US is about (giving to charity, getting off your ass and working harder, being nice to people, etc.). Of course, I don't like the stuff about being antifeminist and antigay, but that influence is declining quickly. That's why I don't go around "converting" people.

Still, everyone ignores the arguments about religious miracles. Some were really legitimate, and they probably did happen. If it wasn't for some of religion's logical inconsistencies and the the fact that some non-thiests can perform these amazing supernatural acts also, then I think I'd actually be a theist. But these miracles are very powerful arguments that really should be considered.

Also, you guys make it seem like there's no proof at all of God. That's just because almost everyone here is an atheist, and there's practically no really smart theists. So there's arguments out there, you just haven't seen them. www.atheism.org is a nice site with food for thought.

I just talked about religious miracles and noone said anything. They're the best arguments theists have, and you can't just blow them off. I know that not everyone here can read all ten pages of the discussion, but can you at least read two or three sentences from the longer posts?

And I heard someone talk about there being no backup at all for what theists say. Well, you can think of a really clever argument against litterally anything, including gravity.

As for the people claiming that you can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God, they're right, but, if you refute all claims made by theists and work through all the arguments imaginable, you can be pretty sure if you get almost no good arguments in support of it. Sure, God might exist, but is it worth investing a life of worship in that belief just because there's a one in four thousand chance?

edit: I'm not trying to go around converting people. In fact, if religion makes you happy, I encourage you to continue. It gives life a purpose, makes you feel important, and generally reduces stress and makes you a more generous person. Just don't harm anyone else, and it's really a great thing. Why can't we all be part of a nice religion, like Bhuddism?

Nevertheless, it goes without saying that any right moral view is also correct as applied to the world; i.e. any view that is moral is also true. Any right moral view is therefore also a doctrine, specifically, a correct one, and any wrong moral view is an incorrect doctrine. So my use of the word may have been a bit sloppy, but it wasn't incorrect.
But what is right? Is right what's true?
It is true that murder exists, it must therefore be right.
Or is right what's moral? If so, what's moral? You can't say moral is what's right, because that becomes circular logic. You would have to define it.

But what is right? Is right what's true?
It is true that murder exists, it must therefore be right.
Or is right what's moral? If so, what's moral? You can't say moral is what's right, because that becomes circular logic. You would have to define it.
It is true that murder exists ....as a collective opinion.

The mother aborting her child is only a "murderer" as a collective opinion (should that ever come to Law).

It is moral what's right. What's moral is what "feels" right, modified by what we "know" to be right through social interaction.

atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?
It would explain nothing. the universe works according to the laws of physics. Whether these are the result of quantum interactions of vibrating energy or planed and designed by a god makes no difference.
God should never be used to explain anything.
Science should never be used to make moral decisions.

N.B. I said moral, by that I mean what an individual determines to be 'right' and 'wrong'. Not what sociaty determine to be right or wrong, which I consider ethical decisions.

Einstein said your best bet was belief...and he is much smarter than I

2. Logic states that anything that is not proven is not true
No it doesnt, it states that if it is not proven then we dont know.

In reply to the topic:

The universe is divided into two halves, the physical and mental. Physical encompasses all we see, and is made of matter and set in space. Mental is all we feel, and is "made" of energy and is set in time. The only reason we are actualy aware we exist is because of the Mental universe, that is while set in a 1D timeline we can look back and compare movement through time, so we know we exist.

The universe is never duplicated, from one second to the next it is different. It is mathermaticaly impossible to occupy the same point in space and time twice. The closest we could theoreticaly get is to get some kind of magic treadmil that goes at the speed of life, go into space, (assuming that the whole universe doesn't move) and run at the speed of light (thus stopping time) and not move through space. Although relative to you, you wouldn't move through space and time, relative to others you would still be moving through time.

So, to be able to see the universe, someting (or someone) must be outside of the universe to engineer the change of space and time to ensure the same point of space and time aren't occupuied twice, which is done as described above. Something only exists because something else is there to see it and verify it. The universe must exist because God mustbe there to view it, an therefore verify its very existence.

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?
atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?

Don't say that there is no god. That would be off-topic.

One of my arguments is:
god=universe. I mean, theists say that god created everything and scientists say that the universe created everything(supplied the suppliea and the means).

One of the best arguments for God is personal experience. I realize that most people do not take the Bible as a good argument for God, but when you look into the personal experiences of God recorded there, when people met God, they recognised him. It wasn't as if they were shocked that he existed. (But perhaps Atheism wasn't so very popular back then as now.)

But the point I was trying to get to was that we were originally made to be friends with God, thus a personal experience with God will be somewhat like discovering a friend, one that you have always had but never knew it. Thus, the best argument for God, IMO, is made by those who have Him for a friend. Those who have not (yet) discovered Him to be their friend must rely on lesser arguments, such as explaining how the universe came to be, or how humans came to be so complicated, etc., which are valid arguments, just not as convincing, since many people seem to be capable of believing that randomness can account for all the order we see around us (even while unable to point to a true example of randomness in our world). That last point was a jab at all you atheists out there.

Avika = Kivam ?

One of the best arguments for God is personal experience. I realize that most people do not take the Bible as a good argument for God, but when you look into the personal experiences of God recorded there, when people met God, they recognised him. It wasn't as if they were shocked that he existed. (But perhaps Atheism wasn't so very popular back then as now.)
This is making assumptions about the nature of those personal experiences, i.e. that when something appears in a person's mind to be God that it actually is God. The assumption is unproven, and evidence against it is stacking up.

It is looking much more likely that personal or spiritual experiences of god(s) are no more than the mind playing tricks on itself. Perhaps such mental self-delusion was a valuable evolutionary survivial tactic, or perhaps it's an unfortunate but not fatal side-effect of the nature of our evolved brains.

This is making assumptions about the nature of those personal experiences, i.e. that when something appears in a person's mind to be God that it actually is God. The assumption is unproven, and evidence against it is stacking up.

True, I approached this example from the perspective of it being a valid assumption. But, remember, I was not using the Bible as evidence for the existence of God, but using it to point out how the existence of God is best argued from those who have a personal experience of God, consistent with what we read in the Bible. Thus, the assumption of God's existence is only 'proven' (I use the word with caution) by those who have had a personal experience of God.


It is looking much more likely that personal or spiritual experiences of god(s) are no more than the mind playing tricks on itself. Perhaps such mental self-delusion was a valuable evolutionary survivial tactic, or perhaps it's an unfortunate but not fatal side-effect of the nature of our evolved brains.

I agree that humans in general suffer from discovering 'truth' that they have already believed existed, i.e., mental self-delusion, from both conscious belief and sub-conscious belief. But that knife cuts both ways, for both believers and non-believers. However, simply because this is a human tendency, it does not therefore mean that every discovery of truth is simply a belief that already existed or a self-delusion. Finding the core of several apples to be rotten does not mean that every apple is. The atheist may be in danger of believing that all apples have rotten cores, and the discovery of a single apple with a rotten core 'proving' that this generalisation is 'truth'. If so, he is only demonstrating his own delusion.

True, I approached this example from the perspective of it being a valid assumption. But, remember, I was not using the Bible as evidence for the existence of God, but using it to point out how the existence of God is best argued from those who have a personal experience of God, consistent with what we read in the Bible.
Unless one is a Muslim, in which case the experience will be consistent with what we read in the Koran; or a Native American, in which case the experience will be consistent with their spiritual beliefs, etc etc..

In all cases, the experience is consistent with, or based on, what a person has already learned from other people. Given also that the experiences of different people are often mutually contradictory, it seems highly unlikely that they emanate from an independent god rather than from the workings of their own minds on data they already possess.

Thus, the assumption of God's existence is only 'proven' (I use the word with caution) by those who have had a personal experience of God.
"Proven" in this case can only mean "they have convinced or persuaded themselves", and not something which can be objectively and externally proven to the satisfaction of others. That isn't proof, IMHO.

I agree that humans in general suffer from discovering 'truth' that they have already believed existed, i.e., mental self-delusion, from both conscious belief and sub-conscious belief. But that knife cuts both ways, for both believers and non-believers. However, simply because this is a human tendency, it does not therefore mean that every discovery of truth is simply a belief that already existed or a self-delusion. Finding the core of several apples to be rotten does not mean that every apple is. The atheist may be in danger of believing that all apples have rotten cores, and the discovery of a single apple with a rotten core 'proving' that this generalisation is 'truth'. If so, he is only demonstrating his own delusion.
But that isn't what happens in the rational, scientific, world, which thinking atheists tend to inhabit. A theory, about apple cores or anything else, can be disproved and blown apart by a single exception, and the process of trying to falsify claims is an inherent part of rational thinking and science. People rely on each other for new discoveries and understandings, not primarily on personal experience.

By contrast, a person who believes in the Christian God because of personal experience is doing so despite the fact that 2/3rds of the world's population, and presumably 2/3rds of those with such "personal experiences", contradict that belief.

Unless one is a Muslim, in which case the experience will be consistent with what we read in the Koran; or a Native American, in which case the experience will be consistent with their spiritual beliefs, etc etc..

In all cases, the experience is consistent with, or based on, what a person has already learned from other people. Given also that the experiences of different people are often mutually contradictory, it seems highly unlikely that they emanate from an independent god rather than from the workings of their own minds on data they already possess.


I agree that this does happen. But there are exceptions, for example, the conversion of the Apostle Paul. Within Christian circles, there is much that in not contradictory. For example, I have personally encountered Christians from Russia, China, America, Germany, Australia, and the list goes on, who have had the same experience of God as I have. That these experiences agree with what is written in the Bible could possible explain the consensus of experience. No doubt, that would be the claim of a non-believer. However, Christians expect that the consensus of experience of God should agree with the Bible, since the same God is the source of both. No one is in a position to determine which way of looking at it is closer to the truth, since one is either a believer or not a believer. We are all subjective, until we gain a personal experience of God.

(Those who are unsure about God, ie., belonging to the middle ground, are not in a better position to say, since God either does exist or he does not. There cannot be a middle ground. There can only be variations of God, if he does exist.)


"Proven" in this case can only mean "they have convinced or persuaded themselves", and not something which can be objectively and externally proven to the satisfaction of others. That isn't proof, IMHO.


Someone else's personal experience of God will not make proof of God for you. I readily agree. That is why I used the word with caution. Only you can 'prove' the reality of God for yourself. That you can also delude yourself is also a possibility. But skepticism about God's existence may also be a delusion.


But that isn't what happens in the rational, scientific, world, which thinking atheists tend to inhabit. A theory, about apple cores or anything else, can be disproved and blown apart by a single exception, and the process of trying to falsify claims is an inherent part of rational thinking and science. People rely on each other for new discoveries and understandings, not primarily on personal experience.


I disagree. The science world is full of delusions. I work in it, and I know from first hand experience that theories get blown apart all the time. Some scientists are deluded, while others know the facts. There are many apparent contradictions all over the place. But that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and call all of science false. Many theories work, so long as we know enough about it. The same goes in religion. If you don't know anything about God, and have no personal experience of him, you cannot possibly be expected to make sensible arguments concerning him, just as in the science world, if one doesn't know much about DNA, no one would listen to his theories about genes.


By contrast, a person who believes in the Christian God because of personal experience is doing so despite the fact that 2/3rds of the world's population, and presumably 2/3rds of those with such "personal experiences", contradict that belief.

Your argument would be a little like arguing that because most of the world knows very little of genetics and molecular biology and still follow practices that contradict what we know about the molecular world, therefore the scientific understanding cannot be trusted.

Arguments with appeals to popularity do not make much sense. Truth does not always follow the majority.

My arguement for God:

I'm a phycisict, and therefore, my reasoning is logical. God did not create us, and he does not have any direct influence on our existance. He does exist, but his nature, and indeed, our nature is unknown in Universal contexts. This is our reality, we know it to be reality because we have nothing to compare it to. If the Big Bang theory is correct, then God had to exist to bring the primeval atom into existance, therefore, he is indirectly responsible for our creation, and that makes pretty much everyone happy to some degree. Maybe Asimov got it right in his short story, I think it was called something along the lines of "In the Beginning", please correct me if anyone else knows what I'm talking about. Maybe the movie, The Matrix is closer to reality, and we're nothing but a figment of some over active imagination, of some guy day dreaming in a park, so therefore we were, again, created by a 'god', however, this time, God is some waster arsing around in a park instead of finding himself a job. Then again, we each could be a figment of our own imaginations, and that would make US God. In the end, maybe it's how you define God. Is God the creator of your Universe? Is God the supreme ruler of the Universe? Is God some fictional character, made up to keep people in line? Where does God exist? There's something out there that we don't understand, and probably never will, but it's there to keep us guessing for the rest of our existance...so lets call it God...

Submit God to the placebo test. Get a random group of 2000 people with similar ailments. Devide them into two groups of 1000 randomly. Select one group. Have a priest, a rabbi, a cleric, and anyone else who wants to, pray for the selected group. Do not let either group know what is going on.

If the prayed-for group demonstrates statistically significantly better results than the un-prayed-for group, we can conclude that prayre works, which is in turn an argument for the existence of some supernatural force. Chaiging the group of people praying to try to isolate what supernatural force it is would be the appropriate next test.

If the prayed-for group does not demonstrate statsistically signifcantly better results, we can rule out any supernaturalist beliefs that assert that there should be better results.

My arguement for God:

I'm a phycisict, and therefore, my reasoning is logical. God did not create us, and he does not have any direct influence on our existance. He does exist, but his nature, and indeed, our nature is unknown in Universal contexts. This is our reality, we know it to be reality because we have nothing to compare it to. If the Big Bang theory is correct, then God had to exist to bring the primeval atom into existance, therefore, he is indirectly responsible for our creation, and that makes pretty much everyone happy to some degree. Maybe Asimov got it right in his short story, I think it was called something along the lines of "In the Beginning", please correct me if anyone else knows what I'm talking about. Maybe the movie, The Matrix is closer to reality, and we're nothing but a figment of some over active imagination, of some guy day dreaming in a park, so therefore we were, again, created by a 'god', however, this time, God is some waster arsing around in a park instead of finding himself a job. Then again, we each could be a figment of our own imaginations, and that would make US God. In the end, maybe it's how you define God. Is God the creator of your Universe? Is God the supreme ruler of the Universe? Is God some fictional character, made up to keep people in line? Where does God exist? There's something out there that we don't understand, and probably never will, but it's there to keep us guessing for the rest of our existance...so lets call it God...

Exactly. God can exist; just not in the way theists portray it. And if this God does exist in a logical manner, humankind will always be oblivious to it, and therefore is a non-true statement because it simply cannot be determined (not necessarily a false statement; similar to how they determine people not guilty in courts of law, but don't say they're innocent). You can take this two ways: either simply say God doesn't exist because it is unprovable, or say that there can be a God, but we will never know and it makes no difference so you don't care. I prefer the former, but that's just me.

Right, then. If you run a calculation taking into account the exact position, state and velocity of all particles in the universe, the answer will be proof of God's existence. It's easy enough to do - you just need a computer containing all of the mass in the universe (and possibly more) and a way to bypass the Uncertainty Principle. But if you're really interested, you'll be willing to do that.

No?

LOL

You don't have any proof that the "answer" would be God. Unless that's what you consider God to be: an equation that is the RESULT of the universe. That's gotta be the dumbest argument I've heard in my life.

No. The simplest explanation out of a series of explanations with equal proof is most likely to be correct. For example, with no knowledge of where I live, the simplest explanation would be to say that the majority of the English-speaking world resides in the United States, therefore I am in the US. This would be completely incorrect, as I'm in England.

You have no grasp of Occam's Razor, do you? The assumption that "the majority of the English-speaking world resides in the United States" is not being compared to another explaination with EQUAL PROOF. Therefore, Occam's Razor has no jurisdiction here. The above problem you pose concerns itself with probability and logic. While it would be reasonable to assume that you probably live in the U.S. (assuming your assumption is correct), it is proven that not every english speaker lives in the U.S. Therefore, it would be illogical to conclude that you are definitely in the U.S. It would be logical to conclude that you are probably in the U.S.

Enter the scientist... nothing is proven. Therefore, your argument dictates that nothing is true. In fact, this entire thread is asking for something that is impossible - scientifically, you can never prove anything. You can just fail to disprove it.

If you cannot prove anything, then it is not proven: therefore, it is assumed to be not true. Yes, it is not disproven, but this is because it was never proven in the first place.
And do you believe the universe does not exist? Because if nothing is proven to you, I don't see how you can believe in anything at all.

As for an argument as to why God probably exists... 'fraid I can't help you there. I can explain how he could (although doing so involves at least six dimensions), but that's from observation, not theoretical.

LOL... Go ahead and show me, I'm well beyond having a seven dimentional graph spiralling down a curved line while turning on two other dimentions. I DARE you to. Because now you're just BSing. Nice try though.

But what is right? Is right what's true?
It is true that murder exists, it must therefore be right.
Or is right what's moral? If so, what's moral? You can't say moral is what's right, because that becomes circular logic. You would have to define it.

You are using the contrapositive of what I said, which has different truth conditions altogether.

Let me state the relationship thus:

If murder is immoral, then the statement "murder is immoral" is true in truth-conditional logic in any circumstance, and the contrary statement of "murder is not immoral" is false in any circumstance.

In other words, any moral principle by nature assumes that the statement affirming such a moral principle is also true.

I just talked about religious miracles and noone said anything. They're the best arguments theists have, and you can't just blow them off. I know that not everyone here can read all ten pages of the discussion, but can you at least read two or three sentences from the longer posts?

And I heard someone talk about there being no backup at all for what theists say. Well, you can think of a really clever argument against litterally anything, including gravity.

As for the people claiming that you can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God, they're right, but, if you refute all claims made by theists and work through all the arguments imaginable, you can be pretty sure if you get almost no good arguments in support of it. Sure, God might exist, but is it worth investing a life of worship in that belief just because there's a one in four thousand chance?

edit: I'm not trying to go around converting people. In fact, if religion makes you happy, I encourage you to continue. It gives life a purpose, makes you feel important, and generally reduces stress and makes you a more generous person. Just don't harm anyone else, and it's really a great thing. Why can't we all be part of a nice religion, like Bhuddism?

Give me a scientific example. If this "God" has a measurable effect upon reality, then we'd all be happy to hear about it. Certainly, you'd have the reports and other things that have been officially recognized. Come on, we're all waiting.

You are using the contrapositive of what I said, which has different truth conditions altogether.

Let me state the relationship thus:

If murder is immoral, then the statement "murder is immoral" is true in truth-conditional logic in any circumstance, and the contrary statement of "murder is not immoral" is false in any circumstance.

In other words, any moral principle by nature assumes that the statement affirming such a moral principle is also true.

Actually, she's not. You have not defined what is "moral", and therefore cannot make the assumption that "murder is immoral".

Actually, she's not. You have not defined what is "moral", and therefore cannot make the assumption that "murder is immoral".

Yes, she is. We're not engaged in a debate about what is or is not moral; we're engaged in a matter of semantics and the implications of any given statement being true, irrespective of what that statement actually is.

I can't give you a complete definition of what "moral" is, because I don't know what the ultimate moral law is. But that is a different question altogether than asking whether or not the statement "Murder is immoral" and "The statement 'murder is immoral' is true" have the same truth conditions.

Organized religion is simply a crutch for the mentally weak, unstable and insecure. Faith and belief do not define organized religion so simply.

I personally agree with the initial post, the universe = god. That is a safe and secure belief which can keep dangerous debate out of things. All organized religion does is allow for non-tolerance to the non-believers.

Yes, she is. We're not engaged in a debate about what is or is not moral; we're engaged in a matter of semantics and the implications of any given statement being true, irrespective of what that statement actually is.

I can't give you a complete definition of what "moral" is, because I don't know what the ultimate moral law is. But that is a different question altogether than asking whether or not the statement "Murder is immoral" and "The statement 'murder is immoral' is true" have the same truth conditions.

We have already disproven the "ultimate moral law". Give it a rest, you've already lost.

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?
atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?

Don't say that there is no god. That would be off-topic.

One of my arguments is:
god=universe. I mean, theists say that god created everything and scientists say that the universe created everything(supplied the suppliea and the means).

'God' is the terminology used for more religious referrences. You say 'God' and the image created is of one of the many convenient beings folks around the world like to pray to and rely on for looking after them and their loved ones and to welcome them in to his paradise villa when they croak.

Your god=universe thing immediately ropes in the more logical scientific thinkers as godfull. I would love the convenience of being able to believe in a 'God', an all-explaining answer to the questions we can't answer yet. Insecurity about death, life and what-the-whole-bloody-thing-is-all-about is real. For me, I have to plod along and use the most logical reasoning to start to try answer these things. The universe is a creation of the Big-bang man. If god=universe then you're insinuating that 'God' is a product of something else, that just makes things more complicated I think.

We have already disproven the "ultimate moral law". Give it a rest, you've already lost.

Pray tell, how? So far as I know, you still haven't provided a definition for what a moral rule is, nor have you tied it back into my argument.

Pray tell, how? So far as I know, you still haven't provided a definition for what a moral rule is, nor have you tied it back into my argument.

Hey, I'm not the one asserting that there even is a moral law: you are. YOU need to provide the definition to US, otherwise you're just making stuff up by saying there even is a moral law. After all, in order for the assumption "muder is immoral" to be true, there has to be come sort of moral law that you're using. Otherwise, the statement becomes completely illogical.

Organized religion is simply a crutch for the mentally weak, unstable and insecure.

I am in no way weak, unstable, or insecure and I am probably the least intolerant person you'll ever meet.

Want to try again?

And, Xenophobialand, I've noticed that you've strangley failed to answer some of my questions. You still haven't shown us that six-dimentional proof either. It leads me to believe that you are simply answering what you like and avoiding that which you know will screw you.

And, Xenophobialand, I've noticed that you've strangley failed to answer some of my questions. You still haven't shown us that six-dimentional proof either. It leads me to believe that you are simply answering what you like and avoiding that which you know will screw you.

And you haven't shown me the equations for love. Why demand what you will not provide?

And you haven't shown me the equations for love. Why demand what you will not provide?

Well, if you'll give me permission to slice open your body and fill it with electrodes, give your body a ride down here, give me a small library of books on neurology, give me approximately 5 years to do whatever I want, and still keep me as old as I am right now, I'd be very glad to do it. Of course, the first requirement is probably the most important. If you still want to go through it, send me an e-mail! I need a body or two to test a hypothesis I've got on the comparative strengths of bone and synthetic bone anyway. Oh yeah, and I'll also need a complete neuro-download of every experience you've ever had with anything and everything, as well as a digitally pre-mapped version of your body with neuro-response patterns that correlate to within a percent of your actual body's neuro-response patters.

I mean, if you have all that, then by all means!

And you haven't shown me the equations for love. Why demand what you will not provide?

I don't know if equations exist but love is logical enuf. It's a mish-mash of chemicals. Endorphins and enkephalins along with the relevant lorry-load of hormone. There is insecurity thrown in there with companionship, reliance, etc. List goes on. We are animals and these things are important.

I don't know if equations exist but love is logical enuf. It's a mish-mash of chemicals. Endorphins and enkephalins along with the relevant lorry-load of hormone. There is insecurity thrown in there with companionship, reliance, etc. List goes on. We are animals and these things are important.

Yes, that would be a very basic basic version of love. Of course, if you wanted extremely accurate proof, Keruvalia, you'd have to do what I've suggested above.

Yes, that would be a very basic basic version of love. Of course, if you wanted extremely accurate proof, Keruvalia, you'd have to do what I've suggested above.

Very concise yes; in a nut-shell kinda thing.

Anyone else, or have the theists run dry of their alleged proofs? Come on, I'm sure there's gotta be better stuff out there if this many people actually believe!

You have no grasp of Occam's Razor, do you? The assumption that "the majority of the English-speaking world resides in the United States" is not being compared to another explaination with EQUAL PROOF. Therefore, Occam's Razor has no jurisdiction here. The above problem you pose concerns itself with probability and logic. While it would be reasonable to assume that you probably live in the U.S. (assuming your assumption is correct), it is proven that not every english speaker lives in the U.S. Therefore, it would be illogical to conclude that you are definitely in the U.S. It would be logical to conclude that you are probably in the U.S.

I'll spell it out for you.

1/ A random person on NS General speaks English.
2/ As a simplified example, assume that there are only two possible home countries for this person: Britain and the United States.
3/ You have no knowledge of the home country of this person - that is, there is equal evidence (none) that they reside in Britain or the US.
4/ The United States has a higher population than Britain.
5/ Thus, the probability of the person residing in the US is higher than that they reside in the UK.
6/ According to your statements, therefore, the person does reside in the United States.
7/ 6 is complete rubbish, because I live in England.

If you cannot prove anything, then it is not proven: therefore, it is assumed to be not true. Yes, it is not disproven, but this is because it was never proven in the first place.
And do you believe the universe does not exist? Because if nothing is proven to you, I don't see how you can believe in anything at all.

Very good. It is very likely that the universe exists as we percieve it. However, it is in no way certain. It is entirely possible that everything I see is a figment of my imagination, and that I am actually a creature with nine legs sleeping in a small dimensional bubble beyond my understanding in the dream. So no, I believe the universe exists, but part of the point of this thread is that believe isn't proof. Remember?

LOL... Go ahead and show me, I'm well beyond having a seven dimentional graph spiralling down a curved line while turning on two other dimentions. I DARE you to. Because now you're just BSing. Nice try though.

You asked for it.

In the world as we percieve it, there are three directions we label as 'physical' - left-right, up-down, and in-out. We are free to move in all three of these. There is also another dimension we percieve and label 'time', in which we are moving at a constant speed of one second per second.

What I propose or hypothesise (pick your term) is that this difference between three physical and one temporal dimensions is actually non-existence. The language isn't really suited to discussing this, but to translate temporal into physical terms, we are falling down a bottomless (or maybe not) pit in Time. We entered it at terminal velocity, and have no way to speed up, slow down, or move around. We're just dropping.

However, there are two other temporal dimensions - left-right and in-out, to carry the analogy through. We can't perceive them, because we're falling, but they're there. God, then, is a being who has free movement in all six dimensions.

What are these other two? Put simply, probability. While moving forward (or down, but forward is the more conventional term) in time, things move from second to second. If you were to move sideways by one second (as all three physical dimensions are measured in metres or inches, so all temporal ones should be in seconds) you would be at the same time - if you had a clock, it would show exactly the same reading - but something would be different. Most likely it would be something small - the apple on the table next to you is in a slightly different spot, say - just as most movements in what we call forward in time are small after a second. To reach any significant deviation, you'd have to go quite some distance.

In fact, it doesn't matter which direction we choose to say we're moving in. If you think about it, throwing a ball and finding it at a certain position one second later is the same as moving one second to the side and finding that it has already moved in that dimension. But I digress. Back to God.

As I said, God has the ability to move freely in all six dimensions. He also has the ability to place the souls of men in any set of dimensions he likes. These two abilities explain every aspect of him as given.

-Omniscience: With the power to wander up and down time as we see it as will, God can check anything as many times as he likes.
-Omnipotence: The beauty of this hypothesis is, he doesn't actually have to do anything. All he needs to do is select the universe to put us in which will run its course in exactly the way he needs. Alternately, he can wander down personally into our universe and shove us sideways in time. Either option is possible, and I make no judgement on which is more likely.
-All-loving: Well, we are his children, and he has all the time (subjectively speaking) he needs to get over any anger at us.
-Doubtless I've forgotten some stuff - it is 3 am, after all. But I think that covers most of the basic points.

I'll spell it out for you.

1/ A random person on NS General speaks English.
2/ As a simplified example, assume that there are only two possible home countries for this person: Britain and the United States.
3/ You have no knowledge of the home country of this person - that is, there is equal evidence (none) that they reside in Britain or the US.
4/ The United States has a higher population than Britain.
5/ Thus, the probability of the person residing in the US is higher than that they reside in the UK.
6/ According to your statements, therefore, the person does reside in the United States.
7/ 6 is complete rubbish, because I live in England.

Your premises 3 and 4 conflict. If there is equal evidence that this person resides in Britain or the U.S., their populations would also have to be equal. Otherwise, the probability (and thus equality) is different for the U.S. and the U.K.

Very good. It is very likely that the universe exists as we percieve it. However, it is in no way certain. It is entirely possible that everything I see is a figment of my imagination, and that I am actually a creature with nine legs sleeping in a small dimensional bubble beyond my understanding in the dream. So no, I believe the universe exists, but part of the point of this thread is that believe isn't proof. Remember?

There is a certain point for each person at which one considers something to be real based upon observations. Some people set the standard really low, such as in the case of a baseless God. Others set their standards much higher, and actually want proof. Is it possible to prove something? Not really, because it is impossible to truly "know" anything. But for all intents and purposes, proof does exist, because otherwise people would not be able to determine what is and what is not or assert anything else thereof.

You asked for it.

In the world as we percieve it, there are three directions we label as 'physical' - left-right, up-down, and in-out. We are free to move in all three of these. There is also another dimension we percieve and label 'time', in which we are moving at a constant speed of one second per second.

What I propose or hypothesise (pick your term) is that this difference between three physical and one temporal dimensions is actually non-existence. The language isn't really suited to discussing this, but to translate temporal into physical terms, we are falling down a bottomless (or maybe not) pit in Time. We entered it at terminal velocity, and have no way to speed up, slow down, or move around. We're just dropping.

Untrue. Time is relative. We are currently in the process of proving the general theory of relativity (once again) with sattellites and ball bearings. The time throughout the time-space continuum does not conform universally. Therefore, we can speed up or slow down time, although we cannot "move around" in the opposite direction that time is flowing without changing a particle's temperature to below absolute zero or forcing it to have a negative mass. This is why equations concerning interstellar travel are so difficult; time is relative, so changes that would work in "normal" time will differ from changes in "non-normal" time. For example, a spaceship travelling at 90% of the speed of light and makes reports every hour to a base in "normal" time (and assuming the base recieved the report instantaneously in "normal" time), the base will recieve a report roughly once every hundred hours.

However, there are two other temporal dimensions - left-right and in-out, to carry the analogy through. We can't perceive them, because we're falling, but they're there. God, then, is a being who has free movement in all six dimensions.

That's only two dimentions (up-down is missing). Time does exist in two-dimentions, normally. That's only five dimentions.

What are these other two? Put simply, probability. While moving forward (or down, but forward is the more conventional term) in time, things move from second to second. If you were to move sideways by one second (as all three physical dimensions are measured in metres or inches, so all temporal ones should be in seconds) you would be at the same time - if you had a clock, it would show exactly the same reading - but something would be different. Most likely it would be something small - the apple on the table next to you is in a slightly different spot, say - just as most movements in what we call forward in time are small after a second. To reach any significant deviation, you'd have to go quite some distance.

Time does not have three dimentions; having an axis for no reason does not make any sense whatsoever. In order to technically "stop" time, you would have to either have to create a singularity or force an object to reach absolute zero (and even then, you'd only force that object to stop, and simply by observing it or matter being around it, it would instantly go back to having energy and no longer be "stopped")

In fact, it doesn't matter which direction we choose to say we're moving in. If you think about it, throwing a ball and finding it at a certain position one second later is the same as moving one second to the side and finding that it has already moved in that dimension. But I digress. Back to God.

Again, three dimentional time does not exist. An axis simply for the sake of having an axis make no sense whatsoever. I could make a fourth dimention for the volume of objects. Does that mean it would actually be used? No. Therefore, the lack of use means that it is simply not true.

As I said, God has the ability to move freely in all six dimensions. He also has the ability to place the souls of men in any set of dimensions he likes. These two abilities explain every aspect of him as given.

Disproven.

-Omniscience: With the power to wander up and down time as we see it as will, God can check anything as many times as he likes.
-Omnipotence: The beauty of this hypothesis is, he doesn't actually have to do anything. All he needs to do is select the universe to put us in which will run its course in exactly the way he needs. Alternately, he can wander down personally into our universe and shove us sideways in time. Either option is possible, and I make no judgement on which is more likely.
-All-loving: Well, we are his children, and he has all the time (subjectively speaking) he needs to get over any anger at us.
-Doubtless I've forgotten some stuff - it is 3 am, after all. But I think that covers most of the basic points.

This means that you don't believe in free will. Am I correct?

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?
atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?

Don't say that there is no god. That would be off-topic.

One of my arguments is:
god=universe. I mean, theists say that god created everything and scientists say that the universe created everything(supplied the suppliea and the means).

For God. Things LIVE. All kinds of things live. Life, beauty, love. We did not do that by ourselves or by "accident."

For God. Things LIVE. All kinds of things live. Life, beauty, love. We did not do that by ourselves or by "accident."

Why not by accident? Everyone says life is so improbable; but is it really? All of these biological compounds necessary to form life are found all over the universe. We have seen these compounds not only within the planets of our solar system, but in the void of space itself! Our universe is MASSIVE, if not infinite. It is likely that life will appear somewhere. This is comparable to hitting a golf ball into a field of grass. The ball lands on a blade of grass. One could exlaim, "Of all the blades of grass it could have landed on, it landed on this exact piece! It must be an act of God because it's so improbable!" Well, duh, it has to land on a blade of grass somewhere.

Well, I'm offline for tonight. I'll be back tomorrow! Please, post more supposed proof, all you theists. I honestly want a serious challenge here.

Simply put, the reason God has to exist is because something that is created has to have a creator :/. Even if you believe in the Big Bang, that original energy had to of come from something whether or not the law of thermodynamics existed, there's no logical reason for a whole lot of something to come out of an absolute nothing.

Simply put, the reason God has to exist is because something that is created has to have a creator :/. Even if you believe in the Big Bang, that original energy had to of come from something whether or not the law of thermodynamics existed, there's no logical reason for a whole lot of something to come out of an absolute nothing.

*yawn*

See Reply #92 (reposted here)

Main problem with First Cause: It overlaps itself. Something must have caused God.

"1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing."

By this, the universe cannot ever exist. However, when you put singularities in the equation (zero-dimentional objects with infinite mass), it actually fits quite nicely into this. God does not have to exist for the universe to be created.

Now offline.

Why not by accident? Everyone says life is so improbable; but is it really? All of these biological compounds necessary to form life are found all over the universe. We have seen these compounds not only within the planets of our solar system, but in the void of space itself! Our universe is MASSIVE, if not infinite. It is likely that life will appear somewhere. This is comparable to hitting a golf ball into a field of grass. The ball lands on a blade of grass. One could exlaim, "Of all the blades of grass it could have landed on, it landed on this exact piece! It must be an act of God because it's so improbable!" Well, duh, it has to land on a blade of grass somewhere.

Well, if it happened by accident over a million years ago, why haven't scientists been able to rpelicat it? I it becaust they ave only had a few thousands or years to do so?

Well, if it happened by accident over a million years ago, why haven't scientists been able to rpelicat it? I it becaust they ave only had a few thousands or years to do so?

They have. At least, they've replecated the important bits.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
and
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/earthstart.htm

Given these two complex compounds--the sugar backbones of nucleic acids, and the self-organizing nature of amino acids, the basic components are present for the creation of very primitive self-replecating, evolving proto-RNA strands.

See http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Abiogenesis for a brief description.

And we havn't had 'a few thousand years'. We've had maybe 150 since people started believing that God really didn't create the universe as-is a few millenia ago, about 70 with the technology needed for the Miller/Urey-type experiments, about 30 with the basic knowledge of nucleic acids needed to really think about these sorts of things, and maybe 2 with the knowledge of how the other part of ribonucleic acids cuold be formed. Furthermore, abiogenisis took place over continents and with thousands of years worth of chances to get lucky once, whereas currently the basic particles that would make abiogenisis possible are the ones getting eaten by more advanced microscopic life all across the world, except in a few laboratories here and there.

Online. Not a single response? Come on theists, you've gotta have better explainations if you still believe after all of this!

There's no such thing as god.

First of all, Humans were not around in the time when the world strated. The evolution theory has almost been proven. The Big Bang is a very scientific and easily understandable method. How can you believe in a godlike figure when there are many facts that seem to point in the direction that there isn't one?

Humans did not believe in god at first. They believed in gods and goddesses whom ran the earth. In the greek mythology you had Hades of the underworld who killed stole those souls of those who were ready to die, and ruled over them in the Kingdom of the dead.

More and more gods and goddesses were believed in because no one ever saw someone who created the actual design of things.

Then there were the monotheistic believers, and they themselves were one in a kind. they believed that one god ruled them all. Which is where the god theory first origionated. Unfortunatly, this idea was only invented about 4 thousand years after the creation of humans.

The idea itself has been followed for many many generations, however it is still only and idea.

While many protest that it is factual, there is no acutal evidance of it actually occuring.

The bible itself is much like the illiad. If we put the illiad off as fiction now. Then the bible is fiction as well.

God doesn't exist for another reason.

It's because if God did exist then the big things he 'did' in the ancient texts of the bible would have come true by now, and he would have come and done something extraordinary to make us repent for the trouble we've caused to 'his' world.

:rolleyes:

*yawn*

See Reply #92 (reposted here)



Now offline.


Im not saying something caused God, im saying something caused Creation, and the only something out there than can't exist without the laws of creation in some manner or another is God.

The best argument for the existence of god is bigoted fundamentalist arseholes ... wait a second :D

Im not saying something caused God, im saying something caused Creation, and the only something out there than can't exist without the laws of creation in some manner or another is God.

But by that logic, something must have created God, which means that God is subject to the rule of another. But that other thing must have been created by something else, so that other thing is subject to the rule of another. And so on and so forth.

Because a singularity is something and nothing at the same time (possessing mass, but not volume), it could have been at the beginning of the universe. The cause is still under debate, but from what I can tell, singularities eventually collapse into real matter, which basically shows that something can easily come from nothing. Therefore, there is no need for outside intervention (such as from a God).

Im not saying something caused God, im saying something caused Creation, and the only something out there than can't exist without the laws of creation in some manner or another is God.
Actually according to the big bang theory there was so much pressure and gravitational pull occuring, that an atom was created. and that atom was pressurized more and more until another atom, and another atom and another atom. until the atoms started connecting.

God had nothing to do with it.

The best argument for the existence of god is bigoted fundamentalist arseholes ... wait a second :D

LOL

Yeah, that is a pretty strong argument.

Actually according to the big bang theory there was so much pressure and gravitational pull occuring, that an atom was created. and that atom was pressurized more and more until another atom, and another atom and another atom. until the atoms started connecting.

God had nothing to do with it.


But who made pressure? Who made gravitation? Who made water polarized so it was ideal for making solutions? Who made cabon and nitrogen just perfect for linking together to make complex structures? Who made stars possible so heavy metals could be created and atomic reactions so that heat and ligght would be in constant supply? You can say that each of these things were a coincidence as far as the creation of life goes but you can't say "they're here just....because."

Now to try to disprove Ghostemperor's disproof of God.

1. There is no accepted proof that God exists
2. Logic states that anything that is not proven is not true
3. God is not proven because there is no proof of God
4. God cannot be true because God is not proven
5. God cannot exist because God is not true

Here we go:
1. Logic states that anything that is not proven is not true
2. There is no proof for the statement "There is no accepted proof that God exists"
3. The statement "There is no accepted proof..." is not proven
4. The statement "There is no accepted proof..." is not true because it is not proven
5. Therefore "God is not proven because there is no proof of God" is not true because there is no proof that there is no proof of God

And so either prove that there is no accepted proof of God, or admit either premise 1 or premise 2 is false.
Probably premise 2, because for a time "The earth goes around the sun" was not proven, but it was still true.
Or "There are nine planets orbiting the sun" was not proven but true.
Or "There are five continents that aren't Europe, Asia or Africa" was not proven but true
Or "The universe was made when a singularity exploded" was not proven but true
Etc. Etc.

But who made pressure? Who made gravitation?

No one had to make pressure or gravitation. It's an intrinsic part of space-time.

Now to try to disprove Ghostemperor's disproof of God.

1. There is no accepted proof that God exists
2. Logic states that anything that is not proven is not true
3. God is not proven because there is no proof of God
4. God cannot be true because God is not proven
5. God cannot exist because God is not true

Here we go:
1. Logic states that anything that is not proven is not true
2. There is no proof for the statement "There is no accepted proof that God exists"
3. The statement "There is no accepted proof..." is not proven
4. The statement "There is no accepted proof..." is not true because it is not proven
5. Therefore "God is not proven because there is no proof of God" is not true because there is no proof that there is no proof of God

And so either prove that there is no accepted proof of God, or admit either premise 1 or premise 2 is false.
Probably premise 2, because for a time "The earth goes around the sun" was not proven, but it was still true.
Or "There are nine planets orbiting the sun" was not proven but true.
Or "There are five continents that aren't Europe, Asia or Africa" was not proven but true
Or "The universe was made when a singularity exploded" was not proven but true
Etc. Etc.

Read this entire thread. That's more than enough proof to prove premise 1.

But who made pressure? Who made gravitation?
Naiive.

Pressure and Gravitation is something that occurs when there is nothing. Because even in nothing there is something.

Pressure and Gravitation are just words we applied to this force.

No one MAKES it. It just happenes.

God is an idea that was created 4000 years AFTER humans were around.

it hasn't been proven.

No, because there could be some proof that nobody has thought of. To prove premise 1 you would have to go through every single possible proof of God and disprove it. Which is practically impossible, so my argument stands.

Remember, you wrote "There is NO accepted proof of god".
And I did read the entire thread.

Pressure and Gravitation is something that occurs when there is nothing.

Actaully gravitation doesn't occur when there's nothing, it requires mass. For the Big Bang Theory to be true there would have to be a universe of energy and matter all pushed into an infinitely samll space ready to explode outwards. So where'd the energy and mass come from?

No, because there could be some proof that nobody has thought of. To prove premise 1 you would have to go through every single possible proof of God and disprove it. Which is practically impossible, so my argument stands.

Remember, you wrote "There is NO accepted proof of god".
And I did read the entire thread.

Well, then where's the proof, hm? Show me some of it. I'm sure you're very eager to do so, and you probably have volumes of it. Come on, I'm waiting.

Proof:

1. Existing is better than not existing
2. Our ability of comprehend a perfect being shows that there is some chance that it exists.
3. For a being to be perfect it must be good in every respect and something that exists is always more perfect that something that does not.
4, God exists.

Actaully gravitation doesn't occur when there's nothing, it requires mass. For the Big Bang Theory to be true there would have to be a universe of energy and matter all pushed into an infinitely samll space ready to explode outwards. So where'd the energy and mass come from?

Exactly why singularities work. Something (if it can even be defined as a thing; more properly, it's where a limit in space-time is reached) that is zero-dimentional and has infinite mass.

But who made pressure? Who made gravitation? Who made water polarized so it was ideal for making solutions? Who made cabon and nitrogen just perfect for linking together to make complex structures? Who made stars possible so heavy metals could be created and atomic reactions so that heat and ligght would be in constant supply? You can say that each of these things were a coincidence as far as the creation of life goes but you can't say "they're here just....because."

*sigh*

You added more so i missed it :

Atoms that are condenced for extended periods of time through extreme pressure change into other atoms. this HAS been proven.

it is also proven that when atoms are rubbing next to each other quickly, they create heat. that heat soon melted other atoms so they changed into other atoms.

When those atoms started melting, vaporizing, and reforming, they soon began to create the process of solidification, vaporization, and precipitation.

More commonly known as evaporation, condensation, and percipitation.

When this occured, water was created as two hydrogens and an oxygen atom banged into each other. more and more was created util you started getting gaseous forms known now as stars.

But stars are unbalanced. The gas in it dies after sometime of this process, and then it explodes.

When it does so, it sends a rippling effect in hitting more atoms which soon were joining together to create more stars. from one there became two
two to five

five to ten
ten to one hundred

etc etc

more and more times a star was created. finally atoms started joining together in a solid state which became known to us as planets.

when these planets had acheived a neutral atmosphere, it began to gain a gravitational pull to it.

When this occured atoms started forming together in complex.

When more and more atoms became created you started gaining things such as plants and animals. When they became even more complex you gained dinosaurs.

The monkey and ape population soon started evolving into neandrathals, and that changed into the earlier forms of human.

after that, humans started being formed.

FOUR THOUSAND YEARS LATER the idea of god came into existance.

In all honesty, the polytheistics were closest. they believed the plants and animals was what created them. and in a primitive scientific form that IS true.

Proof:

1. Existing is better than not existing
2. Our ability of comprehend a perfect being shows that there is some chance that it exists.
3. For a being to be perfect it must be good in every respect and something that exists is always more perfect that something that does not.
4, God exists.

Existing is better than not existing? That makes little sense and has no merit whatsoever.

Our ability to comprehend a perfect being shows that we ourselves must be perfect; otherwise, we could not comprehend such a perfect being. In addition, that would make us all gods just as much.

"Good" is not defined here; please define "good". And something that is "perfect" is also not defined. Perfection as according to Buddhists is being nothing and everything at the same time (singularities, anyone?).

Premises disproven. All four, I might add.

Atoms that are condenced for extended periods of time through extreme pressure change into other atoms. this HAS been proven.



Actually the law of the conservation of mass says this /isn't/ true. Matter doesn't come from nothingness and it certainly doesn't create itself, much less decide to push inself into very tiny spaces to explode all on it's own.

Proof:

1. Existing is better than not existing
2. Our ability of comprehend a perfect being shows that there is some chance that it exists.
3. For a being to be perfect it must be good in every respect and something that exists is always more perfect that something that does not.
4, God exists.

1. Not existing is better because we're destroying what was here before us and in truth is killing the planet.

2. wrong again. The human imagines a perfect being because they wish to overcome that perfection and make it their own.

3. Then John Lennon was perfect.

4. God doesn't exist pay attention to facts not thoughts and ideas with no proof

Actually the law of the conservation of mass says this /isn't/ true. Matter doesn't come from nothingness and it certainly doesn't create itself, much less decide to push inself into very tiny spaces to explode all on it's own.

Except that the law of conservation of mass is not correct. Matter can be destroyed or created according to the theory of relativity.

Except that the law of conservation of mass is not correct. Matter can be destroyed or created according to the theory of relativity.

It doesn't matter if it can be transferred between energy and solid matter or not. There is a set amount of matter and energy in the universe despite what form it's in. You can't make or destroy any of it just move it around.

It's like saying the Law of conservation isn't true becasue I'm destroying water and creating ice. Take a physics class.

It doesn't matter if it can be transferred between energy and solid matter or not. There is a set amount of matter and energy in the universe despite what form it's in. You can't make or destroy any of it just move it around.

It's like saying the Law of conservation isn't true becasue I'm destroying water and creating ice. Take a physics class.

It's called friction. the more friction in a set spot, the more the matter breaks down, and dissapears from sight. once the hole is big enough, you can go through it.

like if i did this : :sniper:
:mp5:

to your head, it'd get a hole in it. that matter has been disolved.

You have to admit that there is something here rather than nothing, (the space around us, the matter and energy that fills it, and the concept of time that makes it all move along). I don't doubt that science will eventually be able to explain every sigle step in the process of how we got from the first moment of existance to today (and more power to 'em) but no scientist will every be able to explain that first moment, where all this "something" came from. Leave that to the philosophers and theologians.

It's called friction. the more friction in a set spot, the more the matter breaks down, and dissapears from sight. once the hole is big enough, you can go through it.

like if i did this : :sniper:
:mp5:

to your head, it'd get a hole in it. that matter has been disolved.


Jesus, you can't be serious!

If I was put in a plexiglass box with no way to penetrate it and I was shot in the head all the matter would still be there, it might be plastered left and right, but every ounce would remain intact.

Friction is when two objects rub up against one another (because of inevitable surface imperfections) and their kinetic energy is transferred into heat and sound energy, that's why objects in motion stop.

Matter doesn't dissolve, matter doesn't appear.

For a guy who's saying who knows all about our universe you acutally know next to nothing. Read up on Newton's laws and get back to me.

It doesn't matter if it can be transferred between energy and solid matter or not. There is a set amount of matter and energy in the universe despite what form it's in. You can't make or destroy any of it just move it around.

It's like saying the Law of conservation isn't true becasue I'm destroying water and creating ice. Take a physics class.

Take a better physics class. E=M(C to the second power). Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa. That's the only reason that fusion works.

For those of you who don't know what fusion is, it's taking two lighter elements and fusing them together into a heavier element while releasing energy. Normally, it wouldn't cause any extra energy. However, a small amount of matter contained within the elements is converted into a huge amount of energy, and the matter simply "disappears". What happened to it, you ask? Well, because there was a large amount of energy discharge that normally doesn't happen, it can logically be derived that the matter was converted into energy. The best part is that this all fits under the theory of relativity to a near-perfect (if not perfect) "T".

You have to admit that there is something here rather than nothing, (the space around us, the matter and energy that fills it, and the concept of time that makes it all move along). I don't doubt that science will eventually be able to explain every sigle step in the process of how we got from the first moment of existance to today (and more power to 'em) but no scientist will every be able to explain that first moment, where all this "something" came from. Leave that to the philosophers and theologans.

No thanks, I'm not someone who makes things up to further my own agendas.

The difference between philosophers and theologians, and scientists, is that scientists try to find things out with reason; philosophers and theologians don't even try to use logic: they just make things up.

Take a better physics class. E=M(C to the second power). Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa. That's the only reason that fusion works.

For those of you who don't know what fusion is, it's taking two lighter elements and fusing them together into a heavier element while releasing energy. Normally, it wouldn't cause any extra energy. However, a small amount of matter contained within the elements is converted into a huge amount of energy, and the matter simply "disappears". What happened to it, you ask? Well, because there was a large amount of energy discharge that normally doesn't happen, it can logically be derived that the matter was converted into energy. The best part is that this all fits under the theory of relativity to a near-perfect (if not perfect) "T".

Gah! I'm surrounded by idiots. Sure you can convert matter to energy, no one's arguing that. How do you think chernobyl and WWII happened? But even if all the matter in the world were converted to energy it would still be a finite amount, and if you converted it all back into matter you'd end up with the same amount you started with. Are you begining to understand? We've got what we've got and there's no way to change it.

But we need to get back to the real question you can't possibly answer with science: Where did we get it from?

Well, then where's the proof, hm? Show me some of it. I'm sure you're very eager to do so, and you probably have volumes of it. Come on, I'm waiting.
1. There are an infinite number of proofs of god.
2. The probability of finding a correct proof of god is therefore one
3. Therefore god exists.

This can only be disproved by going through every single proof of god in existance. Which is infinite. So it's impossible.
By the way, as proof of the infinite number of proofs of god:
1. Pork exists
2. Therefore god exists
I know it made no sense, but this is an example, not a real logical statement. Any possible statement could be premise 1(Or 2, 3, 4, etc.), so therefore there are an infinite number of proofs of god by combining random statements in probably nonsensical arguments. Since there is an infinite number of these, then one of them has to make sense.

Jesus, you can't be serious!

If I was put in a plexiglass box with no way to penetrate it and I was shot in the head all the matter would still be there, it might be plastered left and right, but every ounce would remain intact.

Friction is when two objects rub up against one another (because of inevitable surface imperfections) and their kinetic energy is transferred into heat and sound energy, that's why objects in motion stop.

Matter doesn't dissolve, matter doesn't appear.

For a guy who's saying who knows all about our universe you acutally know next to nothing. Read up on Newton's laws and get back to me.

You are correct that matter does not simply "dissolve" when people are shot. However, you are incorrect that matter does not "dissolve" or "appear". The theory of relativity shows that energy can be converted into matter, and vice versa; therefore, matter can be made or destroyed, although it will still be expressed in a non-material form (i.e. energy). This is the only reason fusion works.

No thanks, I'm not someone who makes things up to further my own agendas.

The difference between philosophers and theologians, and scientists, is that scientists try to find things out with reason; philosophers and theologians don't even try to use logic: they just make things up.

Well Mr. Fiction since you obviously make things up all the time (logic or no) you might as well just sign up for the preisthood now.

1. There are an infinite number of proofs of god.
2. The probability of finding a correct proof of god is therefore one
3. Therefore god exists.

This can only be disproved by going through every single proof of god in existance. Which is infinite. So it's impossible.
By the way, as proof of the infinite number of proofs of god:
1. Pork exists
2. Therefore god exists
I know it made no sense, but this is an example, not a real logical statement. Any possible statement could be premise 1(Or 2, 3, 4, etc.), so therefore there are an infinite number of proofs of god by combining random statements in probably nonsensical arguments. Since there is an infinite number of these, then one of them has to make sense.

But if all of the infinite proofs are wrong (such as your second example), then all of the proofs are going to be wrong, even if there are an infinite number of them. It can be said that all of the proofs are wrong. Either way, if the probability of God existing is 1 at infinity (which we will never reach), then we will never get a probability of 1 for God existing, and therefore it is illogical to definitively say that proof for God exists.

Well Mr. Fiction since you obviously make things up all the time (logic or no) you might as well just sign up for the preisthood now.

LOL

Okay smart guy, what have I made up here? Hm?

Come on, I'm waiting.

Here's how science works: We see a phenomenon that we can't yet explain. Someone comes up with a hypothesis and other scientiss try and prove it wrong by looking for examples that refute this hypothesis. Nothing can be proved for certain be because there is always the chance that a contrary example will be found. Some guy said that the best way to explain where the finite amount of energy and matter in the unvierse came from was that an all powerful being created it. Sure this is just a hypothesis, but I dare you guys tocome up with anything that can disprove it.

Sure you can convert matter to energy, no one's arguing that. How do you think chernobyl and WWII happened? But even if all the matter in the world were converted to energy it would still be a finite amount, and if you converted it all back into matter you'd end up with the same amount you started with. Are you begining to understand? We've got what we've got and there's no way to change it.

But we need to get back to the real question you can't possibly answer with science: Where did we get it from?

First you haven't even bothered to respond to this obviously truthful point of view that refutes what you've been saying. I guess instead of fiction you can call your point of view a "misunderstanding"

Even if they are all going to be wrong, the fact that there are so many of them increases the probabilty that one will be correct. Since it goes up the more there are, then at infinity it would be one. For your argument to be correct you would have to prove that they are infact all random garbage, because the probablity of one of them being right is one.
They can sort of make sense too:
1. Pork exists
2. Nothing is made by itself
3. So something must have made pork
4. So something must have made the thing that made pork
(Simplifying it here)
5. So God must have made the thing that made the thing that made pork
6. Therefore God exists.

And in responce to the other thing, you made up that E=M(C^2) says that you can destroy matter instead of just change it to energy.

Here's how science works: We see a phenomenon that we can't yet explain. Someone comes up with a hypothesis and other scientiss try and prove it wrong by looking for examples that refute this hypothesis. Nothing can be proved for certain be because there is always the chance that a contrary example will be found. Some guy said that the best way to explain where the finite amount of energy and matter in the unvierse came from was that an all powerful being created it. Sure this is just a hypothesis, but I dare you guys tocome up with anything that can disprove it.

So then you don't believe in the universe's existance?

Gah! I'm surrounded by idiots. Sure you can convert matter to energy, no one's arguing that. How do you think chernobyl and WWII happened? But even if all the matter in the world were converted to energy it would still be a finite amount, and if you converted it all back into matter you'd end up with the same amount you started with. Are you begining to understand? We've got what we've got and there's no way to change it.

But we need to get back to the real question you can't possibly answer with science: Where did we get it from?

To quote you:

"You can't make or destroy any of it just move it around."

This is false. Since energy is not matter, and matter is not energy, converting one to another destroys or creates it. Yes, there is a set amount of energy AND matter in the universe. That does not mean one or the other cannot be destroyed (which is what you are saying).

THAT is why I posted what I did.

As to where it comes from, again, I point you to singularities. I suggest you look them up yourself if you do not understand the concept of singularities.

Even if they are all going to be wrong, the fact that there are so many of them increases the probabilty that one will be correct. Since it goes up the more there are, then at infinity it would be one. For your argument to be correct you would have to prove that they are infact all random garbage, because the probablity of one of them being right is one.

Wrong. Since none of the arguments will ever actually reach infinity (because you need an infinite number of arguments, which you also cannot reach), there is no chance that they will reach a probability of one. This also assumes that each argument carries slightly more weight than another one, which also has not been proven.

They can sort of make sense too:
1. Pork exists
2. Nothing is made by itself
3. So something must have made pork
4. So something must have made the thing that made pork
(Simplifying it here)
5. So God must have made the thing that made the thing that made pork
6. Therefore God exists.

There are no logical reasons why statements 3, 4, and 5 are true.

And in responce to the other thing, you made up that E=M(C^2) says that you can destroy matter instead of just change it to energy.

LOL. Destroying matter is possible. If the matter is no longer present, it has been destroyed. Yes, it has been converted into energy; but it is still considered destroyed.

First you haven't even bothered to respond to this obviously truthful point of view that refutes what you've been saying. I guess instead of fiction you can call your point of view a "misunderstanding"

Obviously truthful point of view? Yes, I suppose after reading your statements, it is pretty obvious which point of view is truthful.

Secondly, what part of your point of view refutes a part in mine?

To quote you:

"You can't make or destroy any of it just move it around."

This is false. Since energy is not matter, and matter is not energy, converting one to another destroys or creates it. Yes, there is a set amount of energy AND matter in the universe. That does not mean one or the other cannot be destroyed (which is what you are saying).

THAT is why I posted what I did.

As to where it comes from, again, I point you to singularities. I suggest you look them up yourself if you do not understand the concept of singularities.


Oh, so every time I freeze a cup of water I'm destroying the water and magically creating ice? Even when I melt in again I'm just destroying ice and creating water? Dur.....

You need tounderstand that E=mc^2 is just an extension of the law of conservation. Matter can be converted between forms (solid, liquid, gas) but never destroyed, energy can be converted (heat, kinteic, potenital, sound) but never destroyed. Matter can be converted to energy and vice-versa, but never destroyed. Energy is a finite, substantial thing just like matter. C'mon dude, that's first semester physics stuff.

Bedisdes, look at the big picture. We couldn't have started with nothing and ended up with the finite amount of stuff we've got now any more than the amount of matter and energy in the universe could disappear to nothing. We've got what we've got and you have absolutely no idea where we got it. That's where god comes in. When you explain and defend an explanation for it's existance that disproves God I'll be all ears.

The best argument for God is personal experience.

Seconded.

Oh, so every time I freeze a cup of water I'm destroying the water and magically creating ice? Even when I melt in again I'm just destroying ice and creating water? Dur.....

I'm not saying that. That would be stupid.

You need tounderstand that E=mc^2 is just an extension of the law of conservation. Matter can be converted between forms (solid, liquid, gas) but never destroyed, energy can be converted (heat, kinteic, potenital, sound) but never destroyed. Matter can be converted to energy and vice-versa, but never destroyed. Energy is a finite, substantial thing just like matter. C'mon dude, that first semester physics stuff.

If something is converted into something else, it has been "destroyed" as one thing and "created" as another. What part of that do you not get? This is basic physics stuff.

Bedisdes, look at the big picture. We couldn't have started with nothing and ended up with the finite amount of stuff we've got now and more than the amount of matter and energy in the universe could disappear to nothing. We've got what we've got and you have absolutely no idea where we got it. That's where god comes in. When you explain and defend an explanation for it's existance that disproves God I'll be all ears.

Again, look at singularities. You obviously have no grasp of this concept.

Seconded.

I was a devout Christian for 11 years. Yes, I guess personal experience is the best proof of whether or not God actually exists.

If something is converted into something else, it has been "destroyed" as one thing and "created" as another.

And yet you say that water being destroyed when it's -converted- to ice is "stupid"? It's the exact same thing any preschooler could see that. Besides, it's minute compared to the bigger argument.

Please though, explain your idea of singularities to me. I'm sure it's /fascinating/. I can see God shaking in his boots now, preparing to disappear in a puff of logic.

Anyone else, or have the theists run dry of their alleged proofs?!

The vast majority of the theists who have responded to this thread have only alleged two things:

1] You cannot disprove God.

2] You cannot prove God. You either believe or not.

Those two things are absolutely true. You have not won this thread. You've only succeeded in proving two things:

1] You don't believe in God.

2] You think you're smarter/better than some people.

On 1, you're right. On 2, you're so wrong it's almost pitiable.

I was a devout Christian for 11 years.

Well *that* is where you went wrong!

(j/k Christians!) :D

And yet you say that water being destroyed when it's -converted- to ice is "stupid"? It's the exact same thing any preschooler could see that. Besides, it's minute compared to the bigger argument.

It has been scientifically proven that the water is not physically "converted" to ice. Instead, the water molecules simply take a different arrangement. *That* is why it is stupid. However, in theory, matter and energy moving throughout space-time is constantly destroyed and created, which makes perfect sense.

Please though, explain your idea of singularities to me. I'm sure it's /fascinating/. I can see God shaking in his boots now, preparing to disappear in a puff of smoke.

Actually, it's not my idea. But I'll take what I can get.

A singularity is a point in space-time where gravity (and thus space-time, since it is curved by the presence of mass) approaches an infinite limit. It is a zero-dimentional part in the universe where mass is infinite and its volume is zero. It is "something" and "nothing" at the same time. Within a singularity (which can be hard to understand since it has no volume; however, it is a perfectly reasonable concept when you read on) the laws of physics as we know it, and space-time itself, breaks down to a point of irrelevency. Everything within the singularity becomes undefined, and it is this concept that allows for the creation of the universe without an outside force. For more on this subject, I suggest you read the books and lectures of Stephen Hawking, who knows much more than I on singularities. His lectures on the universe can be found on his site:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/

Specifically, I suggest you read his lecture called "The Beginning of Time". It shows how singularities easily prove the universe could have been created without the need for an outside force.

The vast majority of the theists who have responded to this thread have only alleged two things:

1] You cannot disprove God.

2] You cannot prove God. You either believe or not.

Those two things are absolutely true. You have not won this thread. You've only succeeded in proving two things:

1] You don't believe in God.

2] You think you're smarter/better than some people.

On 1, you're right. On 2, you're so wrong it's almost pitiable.

Well, I don't see anyone disputing many parts of what I say, which means I must be correct on a lot of levels. Unless perhaps you want to try your luck? And I don't quite see number 2 of your first theory, and number 2 of your last theory (referring to the "On 2, you're so wrong it's almost pitiable" being proven).

So pretty much you're saying that since things are close together in a signularity anything goes and the laws of physics don't apply anymore? /Sure that makes plenty of sense/, and you don't seem to understand it in any detail at all. I don't think an argument you don't even understand yourself is going to serve you very well.

And remember, it's just a theory. You're forcing everyone who believes in God to prove he exists? Well then prove that singularities exist. Not to be crude but you can't prove crap. I haven't see God but you haven't seen a singularity. You take them on faith, I take God on faith. You believe scientists you've never met, I believe Preists I see every Sunday. You believe Hawking's book, I believe the Bible. I guess we're even.

Idealism is a very interesting philosophical standpoint that could count as an arguement that supports the existance of God. It's got problems though.

Idealism is the argument that all we have is our ideas. An Idealist say that physical objects do not exist outside of the mind and that all we have is our perceptions. An Idealist would argue that there is no world of matter that exists outside of our minds and that all that exists are minds and ideas. The essence of idealism is summed up in the three Latin words “esse est percipi” meaning “to be (exist) is to be perceived”. In other words existence consists completely in it’s being perceived. Idealism doesn’t deny the existence of what we think of as physical objects, but it does deny that they exist outside of our minds.

What happens to objects that are not being perceived? If I were to take a banana and hide it away in the closet under the stairs then it no longer exists because it is unperceived. Yet the moment I take it out of the closet it miraculously returns to existence. Also the Banana would have no taste or smell, or any inside at all in fact until someone bites into it. Idealism seems to imply that there are gaps in existence. If I were to put the banana in the closet and come back a week later to find it come back into existence mouldy then how can I explain it if it hasn’t been in existence and there has been no process of it moulding? Idealism seems to say that things just disappear and reappear without any explanation and no way to explain the changes they undergo in-between. This point can be summed up neatly with this limerick:

There was a young man who said, “God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there is no one around in the Quad.”

But the Idealist has an explanation for this too. If there is an all powerful God who is a permanent perceiver of all possible ideas and perceives everything even when we aren’t perceiving it then this God would explain why ideas seem to have a continuous existence, they are always being perceived. Then the reply to this limerick would be:

Dear Sir:
Your astonishment’s odd:
I am always around in the Quad,
And that’s why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully
God

But hang on a minute, just who is this God person anyway? How can we suppose that a God exists or if one does exist that he/she/it does what the Idealist has suggested. Using God to explain all of the idealists problems is silly because it actually explains nothing. But in the end the idealist would have the last word by saying that at least with their argument there is intelligence behind the predictability and indeed the nature of reality. The idealist would argue that their argument demonstrates God’s existence.

I took this out of an essay I wrote recently which was an assessment of idealism. Hope it's interesting, if you want to see the full essay I wrote just e-mail me and i'll e-mail it back.

Besides a vast majority of people in the world believe in God or some form of spirituality, and I'm not even sure I want to guess what percentage of people understand how singularities work.

So pretty much you're saying that since things are close together in a signularity anything goes and the laws of physics don't apply anymore? /Sure that makes plenty of sense/, and you don't seem to understand it in any detail at all. I don't think an argument you don't even understand yourself is going to serve you very well.

Excuse me for not wanting to write a seven page essay that someone else has already written. I've already posted as much as I need to; you've gotta do the reading. I can't force you to learn about singularities. If you don't want to understand, you don't have to read. Just know that you'll have no idea what you're talking about.

Again, I suggest you read the lectures and books of Stephen Hawking, because he can explain them better than I. Here's the link to Stephen's "The Beginning of Time" lecture:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html

And remember, it's just a theory. You're forcing everyone who believes in God to prove he exists? Well then prove that singularities exist. Not to be crude but you can't prove crap. I haven't see God but you haven't seen a singularity. You take them on faith, I take God on faith. You believe scientists you've never met, I believe Preists I see every Sunday. You believe Hawking's book, I believe the Bible. I guess we're even.

It is true; I cannot concretely prove anything. But neither can you. So by your logic, we should not believe in anything, and should not do anything at all because nothing can possibly be proven to exist and therefore does not exist. Alright, if that's what you want to do, be my guest.

To quote myself (from Reply #140):

"There is a certain point for each person at which one considers something to be real based upon observations. Some people set the standard really low, such as in the case of a baseless God. Others set their standards much higher, and actually want proof. Is it possible to prove something? Not really, because it is impossible to truly "know" anything. But for all intents and purposes, proof does exist, because otherwise people would not be able to determine what is and what is not or assert anything else thereof."

Besides a vast majority of people in the world believe in God or some form of spirituality, and I'm not even sure I want to guess what percentage of people understand how singularities work.

So you admit that most people are stupid?

Idealism is a very interesting philosophical standpoint that could count as an arguement that supports the existance of God. It's got problems though.

I took this out of an essay I wrote recently which was an assessment of idealism. Hope it's interesting, if you want to see the full essay I wrote just e-mail me and i'll e-mail it back.

If God cannot bee seen or detected, then God simply cannot exist, by this logic.

It is true; I cannot concretely prove anything. But neither can you. So by your logic, we should not believe in anything, and should not do anything at all because nothing can possibly be proven to exist and therefore does not exist.


All I'm saying is that neither of us can give immutable proofs for our arguments so we should both just shut up about it. No you can't concretely prove anything. Neither can I. So why do you continue to badger Chirstians to prove their faith. A prime example of hypocrisy.

If God cannot bee seen or detected, then God simply cannot exist, by this logic.

Black holes had never been seen in the middle ages. Did they not exist until a few decades ago?

So you admit that most people are stupid?

No but I admit most people only worry about what's important.

All I'm saying is that neither of us can give immutable proofs for our arguments so we should both just shut up about it. No you can't concretely prove anything. Neither can I. So why do you continue to badger Chirstians to prove their faith. A prime example of hypocrisy.

They're the ones making the assertion that God exists in the first place. Prove it.

Black holes had never been seen in the middle ages. Did they not exist until a few decades ago?

I did not make the theory of idealism, nor do I follow it; according to the theory of idealism, however, you would be correct.

No but I admit most people only worry about what's important.

So then why are you so vehement in trying to prove God? Certainly, by your statements, you shouldn't care at all. Why continue? My argument must be important, and therefore must hold some merit, if you continue to dispute it.

Thank you, Frisbeeteria, for deleting that inappropriate post.

So are there any more alleged proofs for God?

Here's a proof of Gods.

The Millenium Run (http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/Computer-Systems/Millennium-Run-Simulating-the-Universe/) is currently simulating an expanding universe. It's only a matter of time before our simulations will be dealing with universes all the way to the Quark/Lepton level. Humans are able to reach in and twiddle these universes in whatever way they fancy, thus making them Gods in the universes they create. Therefore, Gods exist.

God, on the other hand, is a significantly more difficult one to prove, primarily because our understanding of "God" must adhere to subjective suggestions on what God should be.

I suggest a universal definition of God be made before any attempt at proof or disproof should be made.

Here's a proof of Gods.

The Millenium Run (http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/Computer-Systems/Millennium-Run-Simulating-the-Universe/) is currently simulating an expanding universe. It's only a matter of time before our simulations will be dealing with universes all the way to the Quark/Lepton level. Humans are able to reach in and twiddle these universes in whatever way they fancy, thus making them Gods in the universes they create. Therefore, Gods exist.

God, on the other hand, is a significantly more difficult one to prove, primarily because our understanding of "God" must adhere to subjective suggestions on what God should be.

I suggest a universal definition of God be made before any attempt at proof or disproof should be made.

That's friggin' awesome. I wish I had one of those computers!

You're right; "god" or "gods" in a different sense than the religious ones do exist. I think this is the most appropriate definition of "God" for the religious sector:

"A being (or set of beings) conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe"

-Adapted from Dictionary.com's definition of God

Feel free to correct this definition if it is incorrect, but this seems to be fairly accurate.

I just wanted to ask a few questions. In no way am I trying to come up with the best argument for God or whatever. I'm simply curious about some of the people posting in this thread.

1) Why does anyone believe that logical proofs reflect reality?

2) Where did the notion of god come from? I can't find any civilization in history that did not have some sort of deity or faith system, yet similarly cannot find any animals other than humans that does.

Well, I don't see anyone disputing many parts of what I say, which means I must be correct on a lot of levels. Unless perhaps you want to try your luck? And I don't quite see number 2 of your first theory, and number 2 of your last theory (referring to the "On 2, you're so wrong it's almost pitiable" being proven).

Nobody has to despute what you say.

Just because 1+1=2 does not mean there is no God.

You're out of luck on this one.

If God cannot bee seen or detected, then God simply cannot exist, by this logic.

God can be detected. Easily enough. I'm sorry you can't do it. Perhaps it is beyond your capacity for understanding.

Seen? Not directly. But, then, neither can wind.

Life is TOO incredible for there not to be a God. Think about how simply AMAZING the human brain is. With so much simple wonder, the universe simply can't have just "happened." Too amazing, the way humans and animals are so advanced, and a man-made robot can't even compare. Doesn't it just AWE you?

God can be detected. Easily enough. I'm sorry you can't do it. Perhaps it is beyond your capacity for understanding.

Seen? Not directly. But, then, neither can wind.

Elaborate. Saying that something is true, then insulting your oponent, and not bothering with an argument, is a damned bad way to go about debating.

Nobody has to despute what you say.

Just because 1+1=2 does not mean there is no God.

You're out of luck on this one.

I never said "just because 1+1=2 means there is no God". Instead, I am merely stating that there is no God because logic neccessitates that there cannot feasably be a God.

And yes, because the statement "There is God" remains unproven, it is still untrue, and therefore, "There is no God" is a logical statement.

God can be detected. Easily enough. I'm sorry you can't do it. Perhaps it is beyond your capacity for understanding.

Seen? Not directly. But, then, neither can wind.

This is not my logic; this is the logic of the view of an Idealist (see post and follow the lead of quotes it is derived from). I am not an Idealist. Please do not make assumptions when you haven't read the entire context of the quote.

And secondly, I was a devout Christian for 11 years, and also claimed to have found God. What a lie I lived.

And if God can be "detected", as you say, then there would be scientific proof. There isn't.

Life is TOO incredible for there not to be a God. Think about how simply AMAZING the human brain is. With so much simple wonder, the universe simply can't have just "happened." Too amazing, the way humans and animals are so advanced, and a man-made robot can't even compare. Doesn't it just AWE you?

See Reply #33 and Reply #142 (both reposted here):

Do you have any idea how singularities work? The laws that govern the universe as we know it are not applicable within them. Therefore, time is considered "infinite" only because it reaches a singularity point, i.e. a limit. However, it actually does reach the limit, contrary to basic mathmatics, which is what a singularity, or a point in space with infinite mass and no volume, is. In a singularity, time-space does not exist, and therefore time becomes completely absent. It could have been a microsecond or a billion years before the singularity broke down into the "Big Bang", but since time does not exist within the singularity, it becomes moot. To quote Stephen Hawking, the one who proposed and refined this idea:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

From "The Beginning of Time", by Stephen Hawking

To learn more about the beginning of the universe, read Stephen Hawking's article here: http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html

Yeah, he has actual proof.

Therefore, nothing actually HAD to exist volume-wise for our universe to be created.

Why not by accident? Everyone says life is so improbable; but is it really? All of these biological compounds necessary to form life are found all over the universe. We have seen these compounds not only within the planets of our solar system, but in the void of space itself! Our universe is MASSIVE, if not infinite. It is likely that life will appear somewhere. This is comparable to hitting a golf ball into a field of grass. The ball lands on a blade of grass. One could exlaim, "Of all the blades of grass it could have landed on, it landed on this exact piece! It must be an act of God because it's so improbable!" Well, duh, it has to land on a blade of grass somewhere.

Nobody ever thinks that if an omnipotent deity requies you to have faith in Him or Her or It, He/She/It would most certainly make it impossible for you to "prove" His/Her/Its existence.

Originally Posted by Keruvalia
God can be detected. Easily enough. I'm sorry you can't do it. Perhaps it is beyond your capacity for understanding.

Seen? Not directly. But, then, neither can wind.


This is not my logic; this is the logic of the view of an Idealist (see post and follow the lead of quotes it is derived from). I am not an Idealist. Please do not make assumptions when you haven't read the entire context of the quote.

And secondly, I was a devout Christian for 11 years, and also claimed to have found God. What a lie I lived.

And if God can be "detected", as you say, then there would be scientific proof. There isn't.

If you "found" god, then "lost" god, it wasn't god that you found or lost at all.

You were a "devout" something for 11 years. How were you "devout" in your
beliefs (if they WERE your beliefs) if they were lost later?

I would suggest that they WEREN'T your beliefs. They were someone else's
beliefs that you were trying out. You can't be "devout" in someone else's
beliefs.

If you simply define god as "that which is what one needs when in crisis or
consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being"
then God is not only real and understandable, but useful as well.

That is my god.

That is also your god, whether you accept that definition or not, as it's
acceptance by you is not required for it to exist.

-Iakeo

Nobody ever thinks that if an omnipotent deity requies you to have faith in Him or Her or It, He/She/It would most certainly make it impossible for you to "prove" His/Her/Its existence.

Then why do people assert that God exists? If the God can't be proven, then it cannot be detected; therefore, no one would ever even know God existed, and religion simply would not exist except as a concept, and not have any basis, which would make all theists liars.

If you "found" god, then "lost" god, it wasn't god that you found or lost at all.

You were a "devout" something for 11 years. How were you "devout" in your
beliefs (if they WERE your beliefs) if they were lost later?

I would suggest that they WEREN'T your beliefs. They were someone else's
beliefs that you were trying out. You can't be "devout" in someone else's
beliefs.

If you simply define god as "that which is what one needs when in crisis or
consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being"
then God is not only real and understandable, but useful as well.

That is my god.

That is also your god, whether you accept that definition or not, as it's
acceptance by you is not required for it to exist.

-Iakeo

I really was going to respond to this post. Really, I was. I had a whole nice argument in mind. But then I re-read the post.. and re-read it again.. and again.

Who gave you the power to look into my mind and see what I really believed? Lucy in the Sky (with Diamonds)?

And if God can be "detected", as you say, then there would be scientific proof.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein

There is more to this world than all your logic and scientific proof will ever understand.

And secondly, I was a devout Christian for 11 years

Once again, there is more to God than Christians perceive. By admitting your devotion to Christianity, you admit that you only have one perception of the Almighty.

I submit to you that there is more to the Divine than Christians have to offer.

Or ...

Are you falling into Pascal's trap that God = Christian.

If you "found" god, then "lost" god, it wasn't god that you found or lost at all.

You were a "devout" something for 11 years. How were you "devout" in your
beliefs (if they WERE your beliefs) if they were lost later?

I would suggest that they WEREN'T your beliefs. They were someone else's
beliefs that you were trying out. You can't be "devout" in someone else's
beliefs.

If you simply define god as "that which is what one needs when in crisis or
consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being"
then God is not only real and understandable, but useful as well.

That is my god.

That is also your god, whether you accept that definition or not, as it's
acceptance by you is not required for it to exist.

-Iakeo

If I cannot be devout in someone else's beliefs, then you cannot possibly be either, since the mere idea of "God" was formulated by someone else, and you were exposed to it. Unless you grew up around people who never knew or heard or spoke about God, you were exposed to it, and have not made this God your own.

You say:
"If you simply define god as "that which is what one needs when in crisis or
consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being"
then God is not only real and understandable, but useful as well."

Therefore, teddy bears and other things that people need when in crisis or consternation to continue functioning as a "good" and effective human being can also be God. The definition on the bottom of page 14 is the God I am disproving.

Logic states that it is not my god. By taking your definition of God as "that which is what one needs when in crisis or consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being", and seeing as how I do not need anything but myself and possibly a few friends when in crisis or consternation to continue functioning as a "good" and effective human being, this would mean that you and I both call myself and my friends "God". Of course, this makes no sense, unless you use us as well as being "that which is what one needs when in crisis or consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being" to you.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein

There is more to this world than all your logic and scientific proof will ever understand.

Yes, well we're the ones with more proof, so you're just going to have to deal with the fact that we're right.

What Einstein was referring to is that one has to try to think outside of the box, not stick to "tried and true" beliefs. This quote actually goes against the argument for God.

If I cannot be devout in someone else's beliefs, then you cannot possibly be either

You are devout in the belief in science. You are devout in the belief that everything seen and heard is quantifiable, but when asked about love, you make excuses.

You are devout in your own self interests.

You are devout in breaking with one particular religion's philosophy.

You are devout.

You do not recognize it and that is saddest of all.

Is there no room that Gunga Dinh may be a better man than you?

Yes, well we're the ones with more proof

You have no "we" except that which you decide exists. Plus you have no proof. You cannot prove God doesn't exist.

I find that sad.

You are devout in the belief in science. You are devout in the belief that everything seen and heard is quantifiable, but when asked about love, you make excuses.

You are devout in your own self interests.

You are devout in breaking with one particular religion's philosophy.

You are devout.

You do not recognize it and that is saddest of all.

Is there no room that Gunga Dinh may be a better man than you?


You did not address the remainder of my post. Is it perhaps too much for your mind to process?

You have no "we" except that which you decide exists.

I find that sad.

Keep talking. It's quite sad that you haven't actually posted any real proof. All you've done is try to make me look bad. Tisk tisk. And I thought you theists were supposed to be moral.

Once again, there is more to God than Christians perceive. By admitting your devotion to Christianity, you admit that you only have one perception of the Almighty.

I submit to you that there is more to the Divine than Christians have to offer.

Or ...

Are you falling into Pascal's trap that God = Christian.

I was also a Wiccan for a year, a Satanist for two months, and a Buddhist for a day. I have tried Tarot cards and rune readings and I-ching and all sorts of other obscure ways to get in touch with "spirituality". None of them work in the least bit.

You did not address the remainder of my post. Is it perhaps too much for your mind to process?

No ... I've processed it. Of course, I've graduated college. I feel like I'm speaking to someone who has never taken beyond a high school chemistry class.

That's ok, though. You want to think me stupid and, in the process, you prove yourself to be ignorant to all but what a calculater can show you.

That's fine. Believe the machine. It's ok. 1+1=2. It is true. I will admit that.

However, there is more to life than what you've experienced. You've read a little and taken some math courses, but there is a God. One Supreme God. You must choose, not by equations or science, but within your very soul whether you believe or not.

Here's the thing people like you trapped in a calculator's truth will never comprehend: God loves you.

I know ... love is beyond your understanding because you can't plug it into your machine, but maybe someday you'll figure it out. I will pray for you.

I was also a Wiccan for a year, a Satanist for two months, and a Buddhist for a day. I have tried Tarot cards and rune readings and I-ching and all sorts of other obscure ways to get in touch with "spirituality". None of them work in the least bit.

Ah! So you're searching. Odd thing for a man of science to do.

If I cannot be devout in someone else's beliefs, then you cannot possibly be either, since the mere idea of "God" was formulated by someone else, and you were exposed to it. Unless you grew up around people who never knew or heard or spoke about God, you were exposed to it, and have not made this God your own.

All ideas were "formulated" by someone else. Therefore should all ideas be
abandoned as "invalid".

Why would "unique unadulterated spontaneous creation" of the idea of God
be a requirement for a personal idea of God?


You say:
"If you simply define god as "that which is what one needs when in crisis or
consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being"
then God is not only real and understandable, but useful as well."

Therefore, teddy bears and other things that people need when in crisis or consternation to continue functioning as a "good" and effective human being can also be God. The definition on the bottom of page 14 is the God I am disproving.

They ARE God,.. or can be pointers toward God. Is that a problem for you?

There is only one God. That is another (partial and implicit) definition of God.
Therefore, if there is only one God, what is this THING that you are
disaproving?

Could it merely be someone's perverted idea of God? Why would you bother
to disaprove of a God that is obviously NOT God?

Simply call it not-God, and define what YOU mean by God.


Logic states that it is not my god. By taking your definition of God as "that which is what one needs when in crisis or consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being", and seeing as how I do not need anything but myself and possibly a few friends when in crisis or consternation to continue functioning as a "good" and effective human being, this would mean that you and I both call myself and my friends "God". Of course, this makes no sense, unless you use us as well as being "that which is what one needs when in crisis or consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being" to you.

You and your friends ARE God, in that case, unless your definition of God is of
some BEING that resides in some actual part of the universe, doing things.

That makes no sense to only if you accept the definition(s) of God that
others have tried to instill in you. But you say you don't accept other's
definitions of God..! Which is it?

If you, yourself, and your friends are truly all that you need in a crisis (every
and any crisis), then you (and your friends) ARE God to me in one of his many
manifestations.

I would suggest that you re-examine your need to argue with others about
your mutually held belief as to what God is.

You say there is no God, because their definition makes no sense to you,
while it apparently does to them, yet you have no definition of God yourself
to replace theirs with.

You are free to define God out of existence (for you), but God is under no
compulsion to de-exist because you have no definition for him.

Aloha kakou (all of us listening) a mahalo nui loa, kanaka.

-Iakeo :)

Then why do people assert that God exists? If the God can't be proven, then it cannot be detected; therefore, no one would ever even know God existed, and religion simply would not exist except as a concept, and not have any basis, which would make all theists liars.
"Religion" is the relationships we (individually and collectively) build to connect ourselves with god. That relationship can exist whether or not god exists.

Originally Posted by Keruvalia
Once again, there is more to God than Christians perceive. By admitting your devotion to Christianity, you admit that you only have one perception of the Almighty.

I submit to you that there is more to the Divine than Christians have to offer.

Or ...

Are you falling into Pascal's trap that God = Christian.


I was also a Wiccan for a year, a Satanist for two months, and a Buddhist for a day. I have tried Tarot cards and rune readings and I-ching and all sorts of other obscure ways to get in touch with "spirituality". None of them work in the least bit.

You are addicted to "not-listening to the world", and seeking for the "magic-
bullet" from the chaos of the human mind.

Why do you think none of them "worked"? They didn't "work" because you
don't know what "working" means, and thus could not see that not only
COULDN'T they work, they actively distract from "working".

You must find out what "working" means to you, first.

"Working", what it is you want from "it", is different for everyone.

For me it is the ability to function as a "good" human-being in the face of
anxiety and failure.

What is it for you?

When you find out, look to the real world, the "natural world", for your God,
and he will present himself in such a way that you get what you want, if
what you want is what is "good" for you to recieve.

God does not give "bad" things. If you recieve "bad" things, you have not
figured out what you really want.

Our real wants are found, not chosen.

-Iakeo

Ah! So you're searching. Odd thing for a man of science to do.

I was searching. No longer. I have been religion free for 6 years now.

No ... I've processed it. Of course, I've graduated college. I feel like I'm speaking to someone who has never taken beyond a high school chemistry class.

That's ok, though. You want to think me stupid and, in the process, you prove yourself to be ignorant to all but what a calculater can show you.

That's fine. Believe the machine. It's ok. 1+1=2. It is true. I will admit that.

However, there is more to life than what you've experienced. You've read a little and taken some math courses, but there is a God. One Supreme God. You must choose, not by equations or science, but within your very soul whether you believe or not.

Here's the thing people like you trapped in a calculator's truth will never comprehend: God loves you.

I know ... love is beyond your understanding because you can't plug it into your machine, but maybe someday you'll figure it out. I will pray for you.

Good. Keep wasting your time praying. I plan on getting things done.

All ideas were "formulated" by someone else. Therefore should all ideas be
abandoned as "invalid".

Why would "unique unadulterated spontaneous creation" of the idea of God
be a requirement for a personal idea of God?

That's what you said, not I. You said you made your own God without the influence of others; however, that clearly is not true.

They ARE God,.. or can be pointers toward God. Is that a problem for you?

Yes, because it would conflict with other definitions of God.

There is only one God. That is another (partial and implicit) definition of God.
Therefore, if there is only one God, what is this THING that you are
disaproving?

That was not stated, and also goes against your statement. You define god as "that which is what one needs when in crisis or consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being", but do not specify that there is only one, and also do not specify that it has to be the same object as everyone else also worships (that would be another requirement if there was only one god)

Could it merely be someone's perverted idea of God? Why would you bother to disaprove of a God that is obviously NOT God?

Because you say that I can. Your statement allows me to say that other "gods" are not "gods" at all.

Simply call it not-God, and define what YOU mean by God.

I already have defined what I mean by God. Again, see bottom of page 14.

You and your friends ARE God, in that case, unless your definition of God is of some BEING that resides in some actual part of the universe, doing things.

So then you believe that my friends and I are God? That would go against your real beliefs as well as the assertion that there is only one God.

That makes no sense to only if you accept the definition(s) of God that others have tried to instill in you. But you say you don't accept other's definitions of God..! Which is it?

I never said I don't accept other's definitions of God, I'm merely disproving your definition as being irrational and self-defeating.

If you, yourself, and your friends are truly all that you need in a crisis (every
and any crisis), then you (and your friends) ARE God to me in one of his many
manifestations.

Again, that would go against your premise that there is only one God.

I would suggest that you re-examine your need to argue with others about
your mutually held belief as to what God is.

See bottom of page 14. Please read.

You say there is no God, because their definition makes no sense to you,
while it apparently does to them, yet you have no definition of God yourself
to replace theirs with.

See bottom of page 14.

You are free to define God out of existence (for you), but God is under no
compulsion to de-exist because you have no definition for him.

See bottom of page 14.

Aloha kakou (all of us listening) a mahalo nui loa, kanaka.

-Iakeo :)

Disproven.

"Religion" is the relationships we (individually and collectively) build to connect ourselves with god. That relationship can exist whether or not god exists.

But if God does not exist, a connection cannot exist except as a concept. And if God does exist, a connection cannot exist because God is undetectable unless it is a mere concept.
Under the Idealist view, of course.

Offline. Be back tomorrow!

That was not stated, and also goes against your statement. You define god as "that which is what one needs when in crisis or consternation to continue functioning as a 'good' and effective human being", but do not specify that there is only one, and also do not specify that it has to be the same object as everyone else also worships (that would be another requirement if there was only one god)
There is one god ...one for you, one of rme, one for everyone. ;)

But if God does not exist, a connection cannot exist except as a concept. And if God does exist, a connection cannot exist because God is undetectable unless it is a mere concept.
Under the Idealist view, of course.
Whether or not god exists, theists have an idea of what god is that they can hold as a symbol of god, that which you call the concept. A connection can easily exist with that symbol (something that stands in place of the real thing) in the imagination, the same way a relationship can be maintained with the memory of someone who has passed away (exists only in memory).

"Religion" (in the sense you're using it) is the rites, rituals and practices that help a person define the relationship, although of course it is personalized by religion (the set of beliefs, unique to each individual).

But who made pressure? Who made gravitation? Who made water polarized so it was ideal for making solutions? Who made cabon and nitrogen just perfect for linking together to make complex structures? Who made stars possible so heavy metals could be created and atomic reactions so that heat and ligght would be in constant supply? You can say that each of these things were a coincidence as far as the creation of life goes but you can't say "they're here just....because."

There are a lot of things we don't yet understand, you cannot just say God exists to fill these vacancies. We will understand one day, but for now we do not but that is all - we do not understand does not mean God exists, please think a little. Don't create your God just to make things convenient for your own brain; if there are gaps in our/your understanding of life, then give some thought to it as opposed to just saying 'God did it', 'God is why' etc.

theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?
atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?

Don't say that there is no god. That would be off-topic.

One of my arguments is:
god=universe. I mean, theists say that god created everything and scientists say that the universe created everything(supplied the suppliea and the means).
"I'm too dim to grasp more complex arguments, and would rather believe in something anthropomorphic being behind it all" seems to be the main one.

originally posted by Avika
theists: What is the best explanation for your faith in a higher being?
atheists: If there was a god, what would explain it?


As a theist: it was the things I had experienced taken as verification of my faith.

As a non-theist: it would require physical and replicable proof grounded in the physical universe as we know it.

There is one god ...one for you, one of rme, one for everyone. ;)

That assertion is unproven. Unless you've got some proof you haven't posted yet.

Whether or not god exists, theists have an idea of what god is that they can hold as a symbol of god, that which you call the concept. A connection can easily exist with that symbol (something that stands in place of the real thing) in the imagination, the same way a relationship can be maintained with the memory of someone who has passed away (exists only in memory).

"Religion" (in the sense you're using it) is the rites, rituals and practices that help a person define the relationship, although of course it is personalized by religion (the set of beliefs, unique to each individual).

That still causes it to remain a concept, not reality. At least, according to Idealism.

GhostEmperor, your essential problem is that throughout this thread you continually tread theology and religion as things which attempt to explain the same phenomena as science and thus are governed by scientific laws. This is not the case. Science attempts to explain the "how" of the functioning of the universe (how new species are created, how old is the earth, how do rocks form) whereas religion (and some branches of philosophy) attempt to explain "why" and "what" questions that cannot be proven with evidence and scientific research (why do humans exist, for example). You might say "humans exist to propage, like every species." However, this answer begs the question "why do all species compete for survival?" It's hardwired into their brain/genetic code, you say. Why is it hardwired into those things, I respond. This line of questioning goes on forever, and cannot be answered by the tools of science.

Therefore, attempting to prove or disprove God is a futile exercise. Belief in God is a question of faith; either you feel it or you don't. Occasionally someone can be persuaded to jump ship either way, but that's few and far between and is not a result of logic, but rather a change in emotion.

So stop with the virulent and dismissive anti-religion stuff; even to someone like me who's only a bit more than nominally religious, it's kinda annoying.

GhostEmperor, your essential problem is that throughout this thread you continually tread theology and religion as things which attempt to explain the same phenomena as science and thus are governed by scientific laws. This is not the case. Science attempts to explain the "how" of the functioning of the universe (how new species are created, how old is the earth, how do rocks form) whereas religion (and some branches of philosophy) attempt to explain "why" and "what" questions that cannot be proven with evidence and scientific research (why do humans exist, for example). You might say "humans exist to propage, like every species." However, this answer begs the question "why do all species compete for survival?" It's hardwired into their brain/genetic code, you say. Why is it hardwired into those things, I respond. This line of questioning goes on forever, and cannot be answered by the tools of science.

Therefore, attempting to prove or disprove God is a futile exercise. Belief in God is a question of faith; either you feel it or you don't. Occasionally someone can be persuaded to jump ship either way, but that's few and far between and is not a result of logic, but rather a change in emotion.

So stop with the virulent and dismissive anti-religion stuff; even to someone like me who's only a bit more than nominally religious, it's kinda annoying.

You don't have to listen to what I say. I'm not forcing you to read or anything. If you are annoyed, then simply pay no heed; I have the right to speak, not the right to be heard.

Your critical analysis of science is not unfounded; however, it has already been addressed within this thread. I direct you to Reply #140 (reposted here):
There is a certain point for each person at which one considers something to be real based upon observations. Some people set the standard really low, such as in the case of a baseless God. Others set their standards much higher, and actually want proof. Is it possible to prove something? Not really, because it is impossible to truly "know" anything. But for all intents and purposes, proof does exist, because otherwise people would not be able to determine what is and what is not or assert anything else thereof.

Thus, one can easily come to the conclusion that theists are less logical (and indeed, some go as far as to say "stupider", though I respectfully disagree with them) than atheists. Because their standards are so low for the issue of religion, who's to say they don't also set the rest of their standards just as low? If you've ever met an "average" person in America, you'd know what I am talking about (no offense meant; it's just a fact).

One question, as well: Do you say this towards people who say that "God" (or whatever else) simply must exist? Because from what I can tell, many religious people are just as "virulent and dismissive" about Athieism as I am about religion, and since that was the only reason you gave for posting, I figured you must do this to theists too. Just wondering.