Is God real post your thoughts!

[Obtaurian]

It's just that instead of wasting all your faith on someone who doesn't even listen or talk back (which is the main reason why believing in God is so detrimental), I invest mine in friends and family. They always have the answers to my tough lifechanging questions, and if you don't have super fantastic friends like me, get off your knees and make some friends, man.

 

 

 

I think you make a great point. Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone, but really, most American families (I don't know about other countries) are so distant and secluded. Children never get along with their parents, the parents are divorced half the time, and I really don't see how investing your time in worshiping a deity is productive when you SHOULD be working on your relationship with your family.

 

 

 

Nothing changes when you pray, but having a good relationship with your parents and siblings will affect your life directly.

[D Jay99]

Now you're thinking that I'm all against Faith and stuff. n-no. It's just that instead of wasting all your faith on someone who doesn't even listen or talk back (which is the main reason why believing in God is so detrimental), I invest mine in friends and family. They always have the answers to my tough lifechanging questions, and if you don't have super fantastic friends like me, get off your knees and make some friends, man.

 

 

 

You can have friends and build huge boats and still believe in God at the same time. Not everyone uses God only to answer their prayers. Sometimes when people pray to him they are thanking him. And your main point is that there is no reason to be a theist. Well, is there any better reason to be an atheist?

 

That was the whole point of his post. If you have friends and build huge boats, there isn't really a reason anymore to believe in God. Of course, you can have faith and pray because it makes you feel good, but why does talking to a probably imaginairy being make you feel good? As he said, why don't you have faith in family and friends instead?

 

 

 

I don't think believing in God has a point other than making you feel good, but there are a lot of other ways to make you feel good that don't involve a God or some other creature that doesn't have any evidence to support, it other than it's holy book (be it the Bible, the Koran or whatever).

 

 

 

I personally don't believe in life after death, reincarnation or something similar, because there's no proof for it other than written reports by people who usually lived over 2000 years ago and hadn't even died yet themselves.

[Lenticular_J]

Logic is simply one system of thought, and it has its limits.

 

AUGH. THANK YOU.

 

 

 

I've been trying to figure out the right way to say this for AGES. But I could never just, do it. Thank you.

[tryto]

Logic is simply one system of thought, and it has its limits.

 

AUGH. THANK YOU.

 

 

 

I've been trying to figure out the right way to say this for AGES. But I could never just, do it. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

Logic, is, quite simply, our only system of thought that works.

 

It's the only thing that can make accurate predictions, it's the only thing that can test the likelihood of a concept or idea. Logic is the principle behind the scientific method, which is entirely responsible for our current high quality of life. Logic is that which allows us to contemplate metaphysics.

 

Logic is important so others can follow your train of thinking. Otherwise, without logic, you have nothing but a collection of random thoughts that cannot be tied together. Some logic is erroneous, or a logical fallacy, but even bad logic is still a cohesive grouping of thoughts that leads to a specific conclusion. Logic allows us to draw on the wisdom of those who came before us and build upon it.

 

Positing that something cannot be defined by logic and reason immediately removes it from discussion. I can just as easily claim whatever I want is true, and when you claim it's illogical and contradictory and unreasonable, I scream "Faith" and it's just as valid as your concept. There's no reason to discuss something not understandable by definition; it's full of hogwash.

 

Can god create a square circle?

 

 

 

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/ ... _logic.php

[tryto]

You brought it up in the FIRST PLACE, by appealing to the amount of people who believe in god as a claim that your argument is more likely because of this and that because many people did not believe in the tooth fairy, it must be more unlikely.

 

 

 

Does anyone (besides children) believe in the toothfairy? Does anyone believe in pink unicorns? It might be wrong to base truth off the amount of believers, but when some guy made up a story and everyone, even him, knew it was a story then you can't tell me that's not saying something...

 

 

 

Children are a lot of people. They don't think it's made up. You yourself claim that we cannot understand god and he is inherently illogical, so we might as well be children in this claim as well, nay? Sure, in this instance it does say something, but once you apply that premise to history and other examples, it falls through.

 

 

 

If there really is a logical fallacy stating it's wrong to say there is a difference between God and the toothfairy because mankind accepts the fact that the toothfairy is nothing more than a fabrication used for children, well then that's a bit of irony right there. All you are doing is taking things out of context.

 

 

 

I accept the fact that god is a fabrication. 18% of the United States is non religious. The tooth fairy is irrational, that's why we don't believe in it. It's just not rational to think that a fairy steals childrens teeth, replacing them with money in the night. As well, it's not rational to think in terms of a cartoon universe, where the cartoonist can do anything and talking snakes and zombies come back from the dead.

 

 

 

In the middle ages the majority believed in a geocentric, flat earth model. This is completely untrue, yet the majority of the population believed in it. That is why this is a fallacy.

 

 

 

The people who don't believe in the toothfairy might be wrong?

 

 

 

Yes. You can't disprove the tooth fairy conclusively. Maybe the tooth fairy is now dead, but used to exist. Maybe the tooth fairy tricks adults into stealing teeth so as to divert suspicion.

 

 

 

Nowadays, everyone acknowledges that Greek Gods most likely do not exist, while in their time they were completely widely believed in by nearly everyone. We think that we made up these gods to fulfill a purpose. However, that wasn't true for people who believed in them. See a connection between this and the current argument?

 

 

 

I don't see this as an argument against the existence of any god. If anything, it only shows that their concept of god was most likely the wrong one if god/gods really do exist.

 

 

 

What makes your version of God superior to Zeus's? How is Zeus' wrong? If Christianity slowly died out and Scientology became the majority, would that make it true? Of course not. Was Christianity more true when more people believed in it in the Dark Ages? Of course not. Truthiness is not tied to public opinion.

 

 

 

If you found someone who claimed to speak to god and was revealed to be a fraud, wouldn't that tell you it's a made up story? If you found someone who faked miracles, wouldn't that tell you it's a false story? If you found someone who lied about visions and made false predictions, wouldn't that tell you it's a made up story?

 

 

 

Nope. The sole purpose (or intention) of the fairy is to exchange money for your teeth. You can prove that it's fake by observing how the fairy doesn't fulfill that purpose. God has many more roles than that and I'd imagine it would be quite difficult to be a human being and at the same time tell me what God's intentions are. And you say my arguments are devastating?

 

 

 

What purposes does God fulfill? Preventing evil? Nope. Why isn't everyone in one religion, the true correct one? Surely an all powerful god, would be able to, say, implant a full text of the bible or his holy book, whichever he is, into everyone's minds at birth? I fail to see any purposes that God fulfills that I can see.

 

 

 

Well, there's the fact that you're basing your belief on no proof at all.

 

 

 

I believe there is a chance of there being God because it's such a universal concept and I think the idea of there being no intelligent mind-work behind creating the universe and our existence is just as unrealistic as God existing. I don't believe there is a chance of there being a toothfairy because a long time ago somebody decided to make kids happy about losing teeth, so he came up with the idea for parents to lie to their children and say that a fairy would replace their tooth with money, but the parents would actually be doing it while they slept.

 

 

 

Did you know that over the entire history of civilized man, more people have thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it than people who know it's a spheroid? 18% of the US is non religious, and Great Britain has a much larger percentage. The public mind does not make a statement true, in any way shape or form. More is necessary.

 

 

 

If god has no power at all or very little power, why call him god at all? He would merely be a very powerful cosmic being.

 

 

 

I see no reason why the term "god" can't be used loosely. Even if that cosmic being didn't qualify with our expectations of a god, he would be the closest thing and we could always change the definition.

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for cannibalism's defining of the true power of his god concept. Maybe I could define my left nostril as god. Would that make sense at all? Of course not. My left nostril fulfills a purpose, and we can see it. It helps me breath.

 

 

 

I will still posit the problem of evil. If your god has very little power to thwart evil, then he's not really a god of sorts. If your god has lots of power to thwart evil, you could surely post some examples. If your god has power to thwart evil, but doesn't, then he's not good.

 

 

 

Or maybe evil has a purpose.

 

 

 

What purpose? I see no reason for gratuitous evil, if there is a superbeing capable of stopping it. I couldn't put it better than this argument by Nicholas Tattersall- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /evil.html .

 

 

 

EDIT: another problem with suffering. If God decrees that we suffer, why aren't we obstructing God's plan when we give drugs to relieve pain? A girl breaks her arm; if only God knows how much pain is right for her, who are we to mend it?

 

Isn't it interfering with god's will to cause suffering for some unknown process if we alleviate it? In fact, wouldn't causing more suffering by killing and beating people up be positive-after all, suffering is purposeful for god, so the more of it the better, right?

[Zierro]

Children are a lot of people. They don't think it's made up. You yourself claim that we cannot understand god and he is inherently illogical, so we might as well be children in this claim as well, nay? Sure, in this instance it does say something, but once you apply that premise to history and other examples, it falls through.

 

 

 

The idea of a being creating everything is a bit different than a fairy placing money under your pillow. It just comes down to opinion. It might be ridiculous to you, but in my opinion it is just as ridiculous as believing that the universe just happened to be this way by nothing more than crazy chance.

 

 

 

I accept the fact that god is a fabrication. 18% of the United States is non religious. The tooth fairy is irrational, that's why we don't believe in it. It's just not rational to think that a fairy steals childrens teeth, replacing them with money in the night. As well, it's not rational to think in terms of a cartoon universe, where the cartoonist can do anything and talking snakes and zombies come back from the dead.

 

 

 

Read my post above. I think it's just as irrational to believe that there isn't a God. This doesn't apply to the bizarre things that you can think up at will just to show that the human mind can think of unrealistic things (existence of toothfairy and pink unicorns).

 

 

 

Yes. You can't disprove the tooth fairy conclusively. Maybe the tooth fairy is now dead, but used to exist. Maybe the tooth fairy tricks adults into stealing teeth so as to divert suspicion.

 

 

 

You toss the word maybe out there pretty loosely. Just because people think something which you deem as unlikely doesn't mean you should try to equate it to something which pretty much everyone knows is rubbish. That's a stretch. At least people have good reasons for believing God. There are no good reasons to believe the toothfairy. Oh no! I did argumentum ad populum! :roll:

 

 

 

What makes your version of God superior to Zeus's? How is Zeus' wrong? If Christianity slowly died out and Scientology became the majority, would that make it true? Of course not. Was Christianity more true when more people believed in it in the Dark Ages? Of course not. Truthiness is not tied to public opinion.

 

 

 

I don't have a "version" of God. I just think the existence of any God is a completely plausible idea.

 

 

 

What purposes does God fulfill? Preventing evil? Nope. Why isn't everyone in one religion, the true correct one? Surely an all powerful god, would be able to, say, implant a full text of the bible or his holy book, whichever he is, into everyone's minds at birth? I fail to see any purposes that God fulfills that I can see

 

 

 

If you want to discuss the purpose of God, I'd think we'd have to open up a whole new thread. It's one thing to argue his existence - another to argue what his will is.

 

 

 

Did you know that over the entire history of civilized man, more people have thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it than people who know it's a spheroid? 18% of the US is non religious, and Great Britain has a much larger percentage. The public mind does not make a statement true, in any way shape or form. More is necessary.

 

 

 

It doesn't have to do with the population. It has to do with the reasons behind believing them. The majority of people believe 1+1=2, does that mean I shouldn't say it's true because that's what everyone agreed upon? You could even say that every human being is wrong to think that we exist!

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for cannibalism's defining of the true power of his god concept. Maybe I could define my left nostril as god. Would that make sense at all? Of course not. My left nostril fulfills a purpose, and we can see it. It helps me breath.

 

 

 

Now you're equating a powerful cosmic being with your left nostril...? Ever heard of the term, "Where the line is drawn."?

 

 

 

What purpose? I see no reason for gratuitous evil, if there is a superbeing capable of stopping it. I couldn't put it better than this argument by Nicholas Tattersall- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /evil.html .

 

 

 

I don't know what purpose. Again, it's one thing to argue God's existence but another to argue what his intentions are. The human mind cannot understand God. He is beyond the limitations of our logic. But if I had to take a guess, I would say evil is here because we need an opposite of good in order for good to exist. If there were no such thing as hot, how would you understand cold? If there were no such thing as down, how would you understand up? If there were no such thing as evil, how would you understand good?

 

 

 

EDIT: another problem with suffering. If God decrees that we suffer, why aren't we obstructing God's plan when we give drugs to relieve pain? A girl breaks her arm; if only God knows how much pain is right for her, who are we to mend it?

 

Isn't it interfering with god's will to cause suffering for some unknown process if we alleviate it? In fact, wouldn't causing more suffering by killing and beating people up be positive-after all, suffering is purposeful for god, so the more of it the better, right?

 

 

 

I can't speak for God but I can make some guesses.

 

 

 

1. He wants us to help each other because it gives us a good feeling.

 

2. He wants us to experience pain so we appreciate the absence of it.

 

3. Being a human, you cannot "interfere" with his will. That is saying that you have just as much power as God.

 

 

 

Of course I could be wrong with those, but that doesn't mean there must be no reasons that exist.

 

 

 

Logic, is, quite simply, our only system of thought that works.

 

It's the only thing that can make accurate predictions, it's the only thing that can test the likelihood of a concept or idea. Logic is the principle behind the scientific method, which is entirely responsible for our current high quality of life. Logic is that which allows us to contemplate metaphysics.

 

Logic is important so others can follow your train of thinking. Otherwise, without logic, you have nothing but a collection of random thoughts that cannot be tied together. Some logic is erroneous, or a logical fallacy, but even bad logic is still a cohesive grouping of thoughts that leads to a specific conclusion. Logic allows us to draw on the wisdom of those who came before us and build upon it.

 

Positing that something cannot be defined by logic and reason immediately removes it from discussion. I can just as easily claim whatever I want is true, and when you claim it's illogical and contradictory and unreasonable, I scream "Faith" and it's just as valid as your concept. There's no reason to discuss something not understandable by definition; it's full of hogwash.

 

Can god create a square circle?

 

 

 

Yes, logic is the best form of understanding we have, but logic comes from man who is imperfect. There are questions which man's logic cannot answer. That's why applying it to metaphysics is laughable.

[Flyingjj]

Logic is simply one system of thought, and it has its limits.

 

AUGH. THANK YOU.

 

 

 

I've been trying to figure out the right way to say this for AGES. But I could never just, do it. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

Logic, is, quite simply, our only system of thought that works.

 

It's the only thing that can make accurate predictions, it's the only thing that can test the likelihood of a concept or idea. Logic is the principle behind the scientific method, which is entirely responsible for our current high quality of life. Logic is that which allows us to contemplate metaphysics.

 

Logic is important so others can follow your train of thinking. Otherwise, without logic, you have nothing but a collection of random thoughts that cannot be tied together. Some logic is erroneous, or a logical fallacy, but even bad logic is still a cohesive grouping of thoughts that leads to a specific conclusion. Logic allows us to draw on the wisdom of those who came before us and build upon it.

 

Positing that something cannot be defined by logic and reason immediately removes it from discussion. I can just as easily claim whatever I want is true, and when you claim it's illogical and contradictory and unreasonable, I scream "Faith" and it's just as valid as your concept. There's no reason to discuss something not understandable by definition; it's full of hogwash.

 

Can god create a square circle?

 

 

 

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/ ... _logic.php

 

*sigh* I know that is what logic is and what its purpose is, I'm saying that that is not all of life. Logic is certainly the way to go if you want to, how do I say this, solve a problem in the most likely way(?). Logic is limited by logic. There is room for no other in a purely logical thinking system.

 

 

 

A square circle is a paradox created solely on the basis of human definitions. I think God could create one outside the bounds of logic, which is the whole point I'm trying to make.

 

 

 

The way I see it, there are two kinds of people in this world: those who believe in the word impossible and those who don't. I don't.

[No_99_Melee]

What's the point of even having this argument?

 

 

 

Even if you supply an abundance of logical statements and facts to prove God is real some idiot could easily respond "God defies logic." and your point would be invalid.

 

 

 

Let's just leave it at Schrodinger's cat and say he is/isn't real until the mask is off ;)

[venomai]

What's the point of even having this argument?

 

 

 

Even if you supply an abundance of logical statements and facts to prove God is real some idiot could easily respond "God defies logic." and your point would be invalid.

 

The lovely scapegoat of theism. If you can't explain a problem, simply change god's properties in order to evade the question.

 

 

 

Even if I don't think there is evidence, that doesn't prove that God was consciously fabricated to fulfill a purpose in the same sense of the toothfairy and pink unicorn. Who knows? I could be wrong. Maybe you forgot that I'm agnostic.

 

Where are you going with this?

 

 

 

As I've pointed out, simply because a concept was first imagined by the subjective human mind (rather than objectively observed) says little about whether or not it exists -- and thus we should not be making conclusions based on whether or not something was originally imagined by humans.

 

 

 

You argue that, because the existence of the tooth fairy was originally fabricated with the knowledge that it is fictional, it is completely incomparable to god. So, for the sake of ease, let's use a different example.

 

 

 

Demons, such as incubi, were once believed to exist by a large number of people. Often it was claimed that the incubus/succubus would first paralyze you with a spell, and then proceed to rape you. Many people reported the experience as terrifying.

 

 

 

Of course, we now know better. Scientific research into these phenomena have helped to explain them by natural means. The sleep paralysis, for example, is a cause of REM atonia, not a demon's spell. Vivid hallucinations of all kinds have shown to be a common feature of hypnagogia and related states.

 

 

 

Although there remains no conclusive evidence to support the (non-)existence of these demons and their spells, we understand today that their existence and interaction with humans is definitely not a matter of being "50/50." It's quite clear that, while they certainly may exist, the likelihood of their existence is not equal to the likelihood of their non-existence.

 

 

 

Plus there is proof against the existence of the toothfairy. If a kid stayed up at night and caught their parents putting money under the pillow then doesn't that tell you it was just a made up story?

 

The same logic can be applied to gods and the phenomena that have been attributed to them. Thunder, the burning of the sun, the creation of the Earth, the healing of a dire illness, etc.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

[hide=]

 

Nowadays, everyone acknowledges that Greek Gods most likely do not exist, while in their time they were completely widely believed in by nearly everyone. We think that we made up these gods to fulfill a purpose. However, that wasn't true for people who believed in them. See a connection between this and the current argument?

 

 

 

That only applies to gods that are defined with clear charicteristics, not the agnostic belief that there could be a god. Also, most organized religions can have a clear contradiction in there dogma that provides a logical disproving of their accuracy.(like christianity having a god that is forgiving yet flooded the earth).

 

 

 

All I definitively believe is that there is a god and that it is a generally good being. As I anticipate the classic how is god good if the world has so many problems lets note that I did not claim god was an all powerful being (could have any amount of power from infinite to zero with infinite being highly unlikely due to problems in the world). If you can find a flaw in that I will be impressed.

 

 

 

I was referring to Zierro; you two have very different belief systems.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

Well, there's the fact that you're basing your belief on no proof at all.

 

If god has no power at all or very little power, why call him god at all? He would merely be a very powerful cosmic being.

 

I will still posit the problem of evil. If your god has very little power to thwart evil, then he's not really a god of sorts. If your god has lots of power to thwart evil, you could surely post some examples. If your god has power to thwart evil, but doesn't, then he's not good.

 

 

 

Then, I will then again refer to my argument from non-cognitivism.

 

Your last response was:

 

 

 

 

1) I guess in a way debating the existence of god is actually ridiculous because neither of us can prove our side. Its also could be considered that human logic is flawed which would explain the flaws in the human concept of god. I realize this isnt a good defense but its hard to defend something that is inherently illogical with logic

 

 

 

God is inherently illogical? God can be A and not A? Then I will refer to the law of non contradiction. Hey, you're honest when what you're defending can't hold up.

 

 

 

 

 

2) I agree that most/all abilities a god could have would disobey logic; after all, we derive our logic from natural laws which god would not be regulated by. Which means a debate on if god can exist is at its purest form a debate on whether or not logical laws have to apply to everything.

 

 

 

Please observe this list of steps to knowledge claims.

 

* Syntaxically Correctexpressing a coherent sentence structure in ones assertion. To say that, did not Bob food today eat is not a syntaxically correct statement. The statement Bob did not eat food today is a syntaxically correct statement. Simply, it is a statement made in accordance with the rules of language.

 

* Meaningful/lessness At this point, one must prove everything. One must prove that the term (s) in the proposition that they are presenting forward has actual referents to its formalization that can be all be meaningfully explained. If not, such terms may automatically be rejected.

 

* Coherent/Incoherent this next step requires one to make certain that their claims are not self-defeating or contradictory in nature when compared to any other given or known facts. Incoherency breaks the laws of logic, thereby falsifying the statement, while coherency allows one to move on to the next step in proceeding toward a knowledge claim: hypothesis.

 

* Hypothesis A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Because it is a meaningful proposition that does not contradict itself, this stage admits the given proposal as being a possible truth or fact.

 

* Probable reaching the point where the majority of evidence available seems to point to ones own provided conclusion.

 

* Known where all the evidence on hand points conclusively to the given proposition as being correct, solidifying the proposal into a positive truth-value.

 

 

 

The concept of God does not stand up to this list of steps of knowledge claims, and thus it's truth value must be zero. You cannot claim a god is possible, when you can't even define it.

 

 

 

The point is not whether God is restrained by logic; it is whether the god concept you are extolling does, and it does not, as it is simply not coherent. You must have a coherent statement before you can posit the existence of such a being. Your statement is not coherent, as the god concept is meaningless.

 

 

 

 

3) beyond logic may mean irrational(see 2) but then again I admit a god would have to disobey logic so its not an inconsistancy. I believe its possible for things to exist in a way that seems illogical to us and you dont, so we are ending up in circles because whether or not god exists will come down to faith or lack there of in him/her/it. Also, two small examples on irrational things existing (-1)^(1/2) being square root of negative one and pi. I dont remember specifics of story but apparently at least one person was killed for pointing out things like pi cant be located on a number line due to irrationality, so if it has no location its odd it exists. I realize math=/=metaphysics but I think the point is reasonable

 

 

 

Irrational numbers !=Illogical numbers. Irrationality in mathamatics merely means a real number that cannot be expressed as a fraction m/n, where m and n are integers, with n non-zero. They still have a logical meaning, and express defined propositions.

 

 

 

I have to concede atheism has a slightly more logical basis for its belief. This debate has turned into quite an interesting exercise, always a good outcome for such things. I have to concede that I cant logically prove god and that an argument against god is potentially more reasonable, though the statement (chance god exists)<100%>(chance god doesnt exist) so agnosticism stands as logical. Only point I have left to argue is that you cant that god cannot exist. Nice job on the proof tryto

 

 

 

 

 

The god concept as a statement is meaningless, and thus the hypothesis can be discarded as illogical by default, the same as if I posited the existence of "gritchnaehndkj". If I said that, you might immediately start wondering what on earth it could be referring to, while it does not refer to anything at all- it is completely and inherently meaningless. While the concept of God subjectively might stir powerful emotions and images of men in white robes, the term god itself lacks a positive, objective identity, having no primary attributes as shown several pages back. Since God is supposed to be "infinite" lacking time restraints (etc), it can be shown that god is a meaningless, negative concept, much like "I am not Stephen Harper, I do not have blonde hair, I do not hate everyone, I do not _______." While God is undefined as of now, it is meaningless, and atheism is completely justified.

 

 

 

While I agree with you that your version of deism is the most rationally justified theistic belief system, it is still flawed inherently, as shown. If you'd like to try to define god logically, please try :twisted: I've enjoyed this particular argument(much better than lecturing people on burdens of proof :P ).

 

 

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... gless.html

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ition.html[/hide][/hide]

 

 

 

EDIT: I promised. Now I have to ask several easy questions and one hard one to try to get a handle on your god and to fulfill my statements.

 

 

 

Can your god create something ex nihilo? Most likely, the big bang was either the start of a new universal cycle of big bangs and big crunches or was a cosmic being creating them.(see note in post)

 

Can your god create a water-breathing man? I dont believe god can deny the laws of physics selectively so it depends on if a water breathing being can remain human enough to be deemed a man by us. Kind of like when do we decide humanity weant from ape to man if we could look at every generation of ape.

 

Can your god create green snow? assuming he is powerful enough to change the laws of physics how light works could be altered so that the snow was green.

 

Can your god create red grass? see above, and im thinking there is some species of grass that is red?

 

Can your god create flowers that speak Chinese? they wouldnt be flowers, but god may have created a planet where a flower like being has developed a culture that speaks Chinese(this assumes many many planets with life on them exist so that possibilities that we deem near impossible can occur through evolution

 

Can your god create a human being with 30 legs? not proper legs, though if you are familiar with instances of non born twins leaving small parts behind in their sibling then I guess through invitro a being could end up with 30 "legs", which is such freakish probability that I could contribute it to god

 

Can your god create a woman who gives birth to elephants? human body would reject the elephant fetus, and I dont think god can selectively reject physics so no

 

Can your god create a teacup that dances with a spoon? lol, just lol. I guess so since through extremely complex electromagnet manipulation humans could make a tea cup and spoon appear to dance. (Im going to assume god is able to do more then 1 human being)

 

Can your god create a second moon to orbit the earth? if he has the power to create that much mass at once(also see note)

 

Can your god remove all salinity from the worlds oceans? see above but replace create with remove, for this and above I will say god most likely wouldnt as I believe god to be generally good and both of those scenarios would cause severe harm to humanity

 

Can your god create a biological organism which requires no nutrients or oxygen to live? define nutrient, since any chemical could function as nutrition to some being that questions changes to can god create a being that survives without gaining any more resources. Hmm, it seems logical some being could find a way to use only heat to provide energy for life giving reactions. This makes such a being possible so god can probably make it(assuming humanity finds a way to reproduce basic life and power of god>power of one human

 

 

 

and finally; you've heard it before folks; can god create a rock so heavy, he can't lift it? Ah the classic, I actually came up with an answer to this and Im curious about your response. Lift is a term describing raising an object away from a given center of gravity(lifting a rock is moving it away from the earth's center. Now, regardless of god's power he could create a rock equal to his level of lifting potential(be that 0weight 0lift or <><> weight <><> lift) Now either god must be in a vaccuum or on some type of plane to be able to lift/move an object. If god is in a vaccuum placing any force onto an object of any size would move it by some degree. More importantly, an object of gods max power in weight sitting on a plane could be lifted by these means. God digs a downward slope into the plane so the object can gain speed while it descends and places a curve at the bottom to launch the object. Since the object cannot gain height equal to its fall due to friction, as soon as the object launches frmo the ramp god applies all power he has to increasing the upward velocity of the object. Presumably, friction could be reduced to nearly 0 allowing the upward thrust provided by god to make the object attain a height above its inital height, at this point in time the object has been lifted =D>

 

 

 

[hide=]sigh* I know that is what logic is and what its purpose is, I'm saying that that is not all of life. Logic is certainly the way to go if you want to, how do I say this, solve a problem in the most likely way(?). Logic is limited by logic. There is room for no other in a purely logical thinking system.

 

 

 

A square circle is a paradox created solely on the basis of human definitions. I think God could create one outside the bounds of logic, which is the whole point I'm trying to make.

 

 

 

The way I see it, there are two kinds of people in this world: those who believe in the word impossible and those who don't. I don't.[/hide]

 

agreed, except id end last paragraph with I do.

 

 

 

The tricky thing here is, I am not defining god in clear boundaries due to the fact I believe he escapes any logic that can be derived within reality. This is very similair to how in the schrodinger's cat problem anyone outside of the box must conclude the cat is both alive and dead while they may contain there own feeling about it which is just as accurate as the other person's feeling(atheism vs theism) Someone outside the box however can not say the cat is alive and enjoying the experience(general theism vs specific religion).

 

 

 

Now, someone inside the box can definetivly say whether the cat is alive or dead and through observation determine things such as if the cat is in a good mood. The problem here is that since any god would exist outside of "reality" as best we can tell there is no way to properly determine his existence. This causes the paradox where god cannot be disproved or proved. If we change the definition of god to any being that exists outside of reality, then logically god is more likely to not exist because there is no basis; however, he can still exist because we can never have the science or logic to disprove him. This brings me to my conclusion that agnosticism is the most accurate model of god, but both agnostics that feel there is a god and those that dont are simply making a judgement call about a paradox. Similair to the what came first the chicken or the egg. The more qualities one attributes to god the less likely their model is to be accurate due to logical flaws, such as how if god is both good and almighty, it makes no sense for him to have allowed a universe with evil.

 

 

 

and to the above post, notice that my belief in god isnt just "some idiot saying you cant disprove him" I understand that logically atheism makes more sense, but I also understand human logic is limited.

 

 

 

wow that was a lot of text :geek:

 

 

 

edit--my text boxes got messed up somewhere, I dont think anything is messed up to the point of causing confusion though

[Zierro]

Although there remains no conclusive evidence to support the (non-)existence of these demons and their spells, we understand today that their existence and interaction with humans is definitely not a matter of being "50/50." It's quite clear that, while they certainly may exist, the likelihood of their existence is not equal to the likelihood of their non-existence.

 

 

 

You're right to say 50/50 should not be the default for anything with no evidence - but God is different. I'm only talking about God when it comes to the 50/50. I'm not talking about any bizarre instance that has no proof which you can make up on the spot. You're right about the demons not being an instance of a 50/50 but there are still good reasons (excuse the subjectivity) to believe in God and no good reasons to believe in the demons or the toothfairy. I think the idea of no God is just as wacky as the idea of there being a God. This isn't true for demons. Doesn't that say something about their differences?

 

 

 

The same logic can be applied to gods and the phenomena that have been attributed to them. Thunder, the burning of the sun, the creation of the Earth, the healing of a dire illness, etc.

 

 

 

I don't think love and music just happened to exist. If you ask me, there had to be some intelligent brain-work behind that idea. It's almost like it's too good to be true. This is just my personal opinion though and I expect you will disagree and say they are just a side effect of the natural universe.

 

 

 

The lovely scapegoat of theism. If you can't explain a problem, simply change god's properties in order to evade the question.

 

 

 

And the lovely scapegoat of atheism is to ask for proof that we all know doesn't exist.

[venomai]

You're right to say 50/50 should not be the default for anything with no evidence - but God is different. I'm only talking about God when it comes to the 50/50. I'm not talking about any bizarre instance that has no proof which you can make up on the spot. You're right about the demons not being an instance of a 50/50 but there are still good reasons (excuse the subjectivity) to believe in God and no good reasons to believe in the demons or the toothfairy. I think the idea of no God is just as wacky as the idea of there being a God. This isn't true for demons. Doesn't that say something?

 

Again, you are simply changing god's properties in order to evade the problem. What if I was to tell you that these demons are also "different" from other non-corporeal entities, and thus can be applied to the problem just as god?

 

 

 

Your continued belief in God seems primarily for psychological comfort. Interesting that you brush off the tooth fairy as a useless belief when it, too, was introduced solely as a means of providing psychological comfort.

 

 

 

Aside from this psychological comfort, there is little benefit to believing in god.

 

 

 

I don't think love and music just happened to exist. If you ask me, there had to be some intelligent brain-work behind that idea. It's almost like it's too good to be true. This is just my personal opinion though and I expect you will disagree and say they are just a side effect of the natural universe.

 

Evolution has created a fantastically fine-tuned environment that we often perceive as incredibly beautiful. Concepts such as love, music and human thought actually help to strengthen my belief in reality and scientific exploration, and push me away from a belief in ancient myths and romantic ideals.

 

 

 

And the lovely scapegoat of atheism is to ask for proof that we all know doesn't exist.

 

Skepticism is the most reasonable response to such a claim, and it certainly is not a scapegoat. Rather than evading the issue, it demands further details to support it.

 

 

 

As many atheists in this thread have come to realize, asking for evidence is indeed useless; theists simply can not provide it.

[mmmcannibalism]

As many atheists in this thread have come to realize, asking for evidence is indeed useless; theists simply can not provide it.

 

 

 

because there is no evidence, and everyone should realize that. Maybe god is just a psychological comfort device, doesnt that make him real?

 

 

 

now if you thought no to that question consider that beauty is real, show me a true empirical example of beauty that is undisputed. If you cant do that you cant disprove god. Also, to the incubi argument I believe incubi come from early christian(possibly clear back to jewish) tradition so they can be discredited on the basis they were made by the same people that brought you god is forgiving but will kill you if he gets mad.

[warri0r45]

 

The lovely scapegoat of theism. If you can't explain a problem, simply change god's properties in order to evade the question.

 

 

 

And the lovely scapegoat of atheism is to ask for proof that we all know doesn't exist.

 

 

 

You think that's a scapegoat?

 

 

 

I think Venomai meant cop-out, not scapegoat, in which case he'd be right. A scapegoat is a person/thing that is made to take the blame for something, despite whether it should or not, while a cop-out is an excuse used to evade responsibility/a difficult situation.

 

 

 

You can call some theistic beliefs cop-outs, but atheists asking for proof when they know there is none isn't. We're merely challenging you and in a way we're saying that some proof should be required before we believe in things; faith is entirely the wrong way to go about it.

[nickeley102]

My argument for intelligent design is that the time lines proposed for evolution combined with carbon dating don't allow enough time for the 'random' genetic mutations (which are then favoured and bred) to occur.

 

 

 

For instance: Which came first the apple tree or the donkey? because the apple tree is made to be eaten, and the donkey is made to eat apples and disperse seeds. What I'm saying is that millions of these mutually beneficial relationships must have developed together, within species, and for them to randomly develop even within 1 billion years is ridiculous to me

[mmmcannibalism]

My argument for intelligent design is that the time lines proposed for evolution combined with carbon dating don't allow enough time for the 'random' genetic mutations (which are then favoured and bred) to occur.

 

 

 

For instance: Which came first the apple tree or the donkey? because the apple tree is made to be eaten, and the donkey is made to eat apples and disperse seeds. What I'm saying is that millions of these mutually beneficial relationships must have developed together, within species, and for them to randomly develop even within 1 billion years is ridiculous to me

 

 

 

While I dont have knowledge of the stated timelines, just because a mutually beneificial relationship exists does not mean the beings developed along it. Im certain donkeys eat other food then apples, and im pretty sure that apple trees can exist without being transported across land by donkeys(or with wind transport) so that argument is irrational. Also, what proof do you have that donkeys were made to eat apples and disperse seeds.

[nickeley102]

My argument for intelligent design is that the time lines proposed for evolution combined with carbon dating don't allow enough time for the 'random' genetic mutations (which are then favoured and bred) to occur.

 

 

 

For instance: Which came first the apple tree or the donkey? because the apple tree is made to be eaten, and the donkey is made to eat apples and disperse seeds. What I'm saying is that millions of these mutually beneficial relationships must have developed together, within species, and for them to randomly develop even within 1 billion years is ridiculous to me

 

 

 

While I dont have knowledge of the stated timelines, just because a mutually beneificial relationship exists does not mean the beings developed along it. Im certain donkeys eat other food then apples, and im pretty sure that apple trees can exist without being transported across land by donkeys(or with wind transport) so that argument is irrational. Also, what proof do you have that donkeys were made to eat apples and disperse seeds.

 

Thats my point, so many different millions of species 'evolved' randomly to meet each others needs. So the donkey isn't designed for an apple tree, something(s) must be. Its the random genetic mutations which disrupt the timeline for me. If it were an intelligent change it would be more believable.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

My argument for intelligent design is that the time lines proposed for evolution combined with carbon dating don't allow enough time for the 'random' genetic mutations (which are then favoured and bred) to occur.

 

 

 

For instance: Which came first the apple tree or the donkey? because the apple tree is made to be eaten, and the donkey is made to eat apples and disperse seeds. What I'm saying is that millions of these mutually beneficial relationships must have developed together, within species, and for them to randomly develop even within 1 billion years is ridiculous to me

 

 

 

While I dont have knowledge of the stated timelines, just because a mutually beneificial relationship exists does not mean the beings developed along it. Im certain donkeys eat other food then apples, and im pretty sure that apple trees can exist without being transported across land by donkeys(or with wind transport) so that argument is irrational. Also, what proof do you have that donkeys were made to eat apples and disperse seeds.

 

Thats my point, so many different millions of species 'evolved' randomly to meet each others needs. So the donkey isn't designed for an apple tree, something(s) must be. Its the random genetic mutations which disrupt the timeline for me. If it were an intelligent change it would be more believable.

[/hide]

 

 

 

You realize how evolution works right? Species adapt in a way that makes them well advantaged in their surroundings due to natural selection. Say all that existed on the earth was a giant orchard of apple trees and some animals. Clearly the only organisms will survive are those that can either eat apples or eat each the other organisms. Any traits that let an animal eat oranges wont give it a benefit so they will either disappear or remain unnoticed. Now, lets say suddenly every apple on the planet turns into an orange. Suddenly any animal able to eat oranges will become a dominant species, and any species that can only eat apples will die out or if lucky adapt. There is nothing intelligent about this process it is just the way reality works. Granted, some species have adaptions that are amazing and seem only possible with outside force, but one must consider that evolution has had milllions and millions of years by which to change everything from a single celled organism into the myriad of lifeforms we have today.

[venomai]

I think Venomai meant cop-out, not scapegoat, in which case he'd be right. A scapegoat is a person/thing that is made to take the blame for something, despite whether it should or not, while a cop-out is an excuse used to evade responsibility/a difficult situation.

 

My apologies, I did mean cop-out. I'm mixing up my words. :lol:

 

 

 

Maybe god is just a psychological comfort device, doesnt that make him real?

 

As real as the tooth fairy. i.e. Not very.

 

 

 

now if you thought no to that question consider that beauty is real, show me a true empirical example of beauty that is undisputed.

 

Beauty is a subjective interpretation of a person, place or thing. Along the same vein, I can not show you empirical evidence of "coolness." I can, however, observe the ways in which it influences human behaviour.

 

 

 

If you are trying to liken god to these qualities, then I would agree. God is nothing more than a subjective interpretation of the unexplained. By this understanding, god is not only as unintelligent and unloving as a frying pan, but is also unable to interact with the physical world.

 

 

 

Also, to the incubi argument I believe incubi come from early christian(possibly clear back to jewish) tradition so they can be discredited on the basis they were made by the same people that brought you god is forgiving but will kill you if he gets mad.

 

Er... What?

[magekillr]

I remember about two years ago I used to troll on here about God, acting like a creationist and that the world could be 10,000 years old. I think it was less about trolling, and more about expressing my frustration about the stupidity and willful ignorance of my parents. Any time I try and educate them about the subjects of cosmology or biology (evolution), they treat me like some arrogant [puncture] that's trying to end their beliefs in God. I mean, I am an arrogant [puncture], but when it comes to the education of others, especially people like my parents, I try and be as humble as I can. Rather than trying to understand what I am telling them, they blast me in defense of their religion, and tell me evolution is nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to remove God out of our lives.

 

 

 

I was always complacent towards God and religion. I never really had a problem with it. However, working for Obama's campaign for however many months that I did has made me...very hostile towards the idea of organized religion. I never knew how much it consumed people's lives, controlled which ways they voted, what issues were of utmost importance, etc. I understand how much of a personal role that religion fills in people's lives, but to use your religion as a guide to whom you vote for is just asinine. Why wouldn't you use logic and critical thinking to properly assess the candidates? Aren't you thinking of the other people that you're thrusting your religion on? Oh well, people can vote for whatever reason they like, whether it's race or religion or w/e, but that doesn't mean we can't be critical of that choice.

 

 

 

Anyway, that was a ton of rambling. So during the election with all these people making their choices based on their dogmatic beliefs, I began to question what I believed and where I ended up on the line along theist and atheist. I began to question the Judeo-Christian God especially, as well as Allah (which would be the same God). The different rules inside the religion didn't make much sense to begin with, but then when I thought about the concept of Hell, then I was REALLY at a loss for words. The idea of an omnipotent being, sending people to a place to die and suffer and burn for all of eternity for a mild 100 years on Earth, when he was the one that "created" this person to start...just makes absolutely no sense. As explained in the Death Penalty thread by Bluelancer, sociopaths do not think like your traditional person; they don't value life, and could/would kill someone without a second thought. How could God send someone to hell for killing someone, when it was God that created his mind to think like a sociopath in the first place, and for all eternity no less? It just seems a tad harsh for an omnipotent being that created us and knows what we will do. Oh, speaking of which, that's why the idea of "free-will" doesn't make sense, either. I have free-will, but he knows what I'll do. Why let me be born at all if you know I'm destined for hell? None of it makes a bit of sense.

 

 

 

So that leaves me with my beliefs, where do I belong then. I can't really say, actually. I'm not an atheist, but I'm not necessarily your traditional theist, either. When I think of books like the Bible or the Qur'an as "divinely" inspired, I think of man dreaming of ways to defend the "sacred" texts in the form of a cop-out, so that no one would question it. I also believe that none of these people in the Bible/Qur'an actually spoke to God, but that they just acted like they did depending on the outcome. For example, if the Philistines were defeated in battle, God "granted them favor and told them to go to war." However, if they lost and were enslaved or something, God "punished them for their sins and lack of faith." To think that Muslims believe the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad over a span of several years, and that his followers wrote down what he said is just...ridiculous and laughable. If anyone did that in modern times, they'd be laughed at like they were crazy. Actually, that did happen with the Mormons, or at least something vaguely similar.

 

 

 

So I guess I do believe in God, but I'm not sure what "God" is. I wouldn't be so sympathetic towards the atheists' cause if there wasn't so much that is threatening the school system and our rights as citizens. I don't blame religion for the cause of war, I blame nationalism and pride in one's heritage; that divisiveness to so easily condemn those that are different than you, it just goes much farther than religious differences. Although I don't believe in a jealous or vengeful creator, I would say that I am a Christian. I think of Jesus as a wonderful man with wonderful parables that showed people great ways to live one's life. So to that, I subscribe to the Jeffersonian Bible, and try to incorporate his teachings to my everyday life. What more is a Christian than a "Follower of Christ"?

[mmmcannibalism]

The last thing is my personal dislike of the bible from growing up in a catholic family. Read any random section in the old testament vs new testamant and you realize the christian god loved to smite people for fun then decided it was a good idea to send his son to tell everyone to be forgiving.

 

 

 

The point about the incubi was just arguing semantics as the example is valid. I believe incubi come from either jewish or christian tradition which lowers their likelihood of existence due to being a superstition from a particular religion. Similair to the tradition of throwing salt over your should if you spill it to prevent demonic possession(yes that is hilarious) The point being if a superstition came from one religion its less likely along the same line as a specific god existing is.

 

 

 

By this understanding, god is not only as unintelligent and unloving as a frying pan, but is also unable to interact with the physical world.

. Which is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, In which case humanity is slowly shrinking god through science lol. I'll always believe in a being beyond reality, maybe just for some comfort about the vastness of reality, but even if I somehow knew there wasnt a god Im not dependant on it to guide my life so I figure no harm no foul.

 

 

 

edit--to above post, agreed hell as a permanent punishment is entirely illogical. On an interesting relevant note. [hide=]As Im sure most people know the catholic church is strongly against abortion.(note Im not commenting on the Us election dont want to argue it good luck to obama even though I dont like most of his policy. So just to clear up this is just a funny note about the catholic church not judging any candidate/candidates.) Well, the catholic church places protection of what it deems innocent life as the first or second most important thing to base voting on, and clearly obama is fairly pro choice. Well, a former nun catholic nun was talking about how excited they were that obama won, then dismayed when they had pointed out to them that he was pro choice. :lol: The point, Americans dont study policy of candidates and vote on the stupidest stuff, clearly if your god is "telling" you to be against abortion you should try to prevent pro choice candidates.[/hide]

 

hid as its kinda political and I dont want a political debate here, the point is [hide=]youd be amazed how much americans vote based on non policy things such as race or "coolness" or the chessy chain letters that I kept getting about how obama isnt really an american citizen(like my parents who find the need to point out obama is black, I wasnt aware that I missed that so Im not sure what they are trying to prove :roll: I think I got those electronic mail from them.[/hide]

 

 

 

figured Id hide stuff to avoid political debate as I dont want to deal with it in this thread lol.

[Zierro]

Your continued belief in God seems primarily for psychological comfort. Interesting that you brush off the tooth fairy as a useless belief when it, too, was introduced solely as a means of providing psychological comfort.

 

 

 

Maybe the main difference between God and the toothfairy is that the people who claimed that the toothfairy exists admitted that she's not real. It would be the equivalent of everyone who claimed to speak with or see God to admit that they were lying. Also, God is a general term while the toothfairy is a very narrow and specific. If someone claimed that there was a God that breathed fire and had 50 wings then I probably wouldn't believe them. If someone said God was just the mind-work behind the universe then I would definitely consider the idea. It just sounds more feasible if you ask me. That's why I don't like your analogy of the toothfairy and the demon examples are actually much better.

 

 

 

Aside from this psychological comfort, there is little benefit to believing in god.

 

 

 

Is there much of a benefit for not believing? And I'm talking about the believing - not acting on the beliefs.

 

 

 

Evolution has created a fantastically fine-tuned environment that we often perceive as incredibly beautiful. Concepts such as love, music and human thought actually help to strengthen my belief in reality and scientific exploration, and push me away from a belief in ancient myths and romantic ideals.

 

 

 

To me it seems like it was designed this way on purpose. Life could be like an amusement park. There is a creator who spent the time and thought to develop something which he knew his customers would enjoy. That's how I see God if he did exist.

 

 

 

Skepticism is the most reasonable response to such a claim, and it certainly is not a scapegoat. Rather than evading the issue, it demands further details to support it.

 

 

 

As many atheists in this thread have come to realize, asking for evidence is indeed useless; theists simply can not provide it.

 

 

 

Let's say he does exist. How can a human provide evidence for the existence of a being who we can't see or even understand? Whether he exists or not, you still won't be getting your evidence, so why ask for it?

[Lenticular_J]

 

Welcome c:

[D Jay99]

Skepticism is the most reasonable response to such a claim, and it certainly is not a scapegoat. Rather than evading the issue, it demands further details to support it.

 

 

 

As many atheists in this thread have come to realize, asking for evidence is indeed useless; theists simply can not provide it.

 

 

 

How can a human provide evidence for the existence of a being who we can't see or even understand?

 

Why would we even pray to and believe in such a being if we don't even know what it is, what it does, what it wants and if it's even real?

[Zierro]

Why would we even pray to and believe in such a being if we don't even know what it is, what it does, what it wants and if it's even real?

 

 

 

You're setting me up for this one... Why not?

 

 

 

No, I don't actually hold that view but when you are going to ask a question like that then you're going to get an answer like that.

 

 

 

I believe in gravity but I'm not an expert on it.

 

 

 

So I guess I do believe in God, but I'm not sure what "God" is. I wouldn't be so sympathetic towards the atheists' cause if there wasn't so much that is threatening the school system and our rights as citizens. I don't blame religion for the cause of war, I blame nationalism and pride in one's heritage; that divisiveness to so easily condemn those that are different than you, it just goes much farther than religious differences. Although I don't believe in a jealous or vengeful creator, I would say that I am a Christian. I think of Jesus as a wonderful man with wonderful parables that showed people great ways to live one's life. So to that, I subscribe to the Jeffersonian Bible, and try to incorporate his teachings to my everyday life. What more is a Christian than a "Follower of Christ"?

 

 

 

I never saw it in that light - you bring up a very good point. This was one of the reasons why I don't follow any specific religion. Even though I am a "Follower of Christ" I still wouldn't go as far as saying I'm a Christian though. While I hold some Christian values, I also hold Buddhist values too and values from other religions.