Is God real post your thoughts!

[user1991]

Don't try and claim that God is less complex. God created the Universe apparently, he can't possibly be less complex.

 

 

 

Nice twist of words you used there. You should have surprised me and not engaged in logical fallacies in your first response - save them for later. I didn't say god the being wasn't complex - I said the fact that he was the one who created the universe was less complex than the fact that he didn't.

 

 

 

If I see a logical fallacy I'm going to point it out, not save it up for later so I can win some random internet argument

 

 

 

The attributes which you say the Universe cannot, or does not have, you give to God.

 

 

 

Duh. He's the only one which the attributes can be attached to.

 

 

 

That isn't the point I was arguing. I was arguing that the concepts of the Universe existing eternally and God, a consciousness existing eternally are not equal in terms of complexity, and therefore if you assume the more complex one you are being irrational. You saying "he's the only one which the attributes can be attached to" implies that it is impossible for the Universe or anything else to have those attributes. Really, that's a bold claim. The issue here is not semantics, but rather you choosing something more complex than the original thing being described, in order to describe that thing. It requires more to believe in God than to believe the Universe has quality of having existed forever.

 

 

 

If you're going to be making wild assumptions, why would you not just assume that the Universe has always existed? Why would you fathom a complex consciousness, with a load of other stuff to go with it, in order to explain something when you could come up with an infinite number of explanations that are less complex and more likely?

 

 

 

Wild assumptions are made by both theists and atheists alike. Why would you fathom the fact that everything is a complete accident and that we weren't meant to be here? Of course you can pretend like you have logic on your side, but that's not the case - what you speak of derives from pessimism not Occam's Razor. If thinking your life was an accident satisfies you then I don't see how it isn't justifiable to think my life wasn't an accident in order to satisfy me.

 

 

 

I wasn't saying that "everything is a complete accident." I see absolutely no reason to suggest that there is any objective system of value to be found anywhere at any time. It isn't pessimistic, because in order for there to be "pessimism" there has to be an objective system of value. You're saying that we think everything is an accident, therefore meaningless, and you're also saying that at heart we're all closet pessimists (something which value is necessary for)? It isn't a question of satisfaction either. Simply put, you're trying to divert the previous argument onto other topics and play the "atheist pessimist" card.

 

 

 

There is also an infinite regression. You can't just say "God did it!", because who did God? Where did God come from? You're willing to say that God just exists, but you say this is impossible for the Universe?

 

 

 

Cause and effect isn't relevant to god. If we can assume he made everything we can assume he made cause and effect and time so questions like that are meaningless.

 

 

You are missing the point. You are arguing that the Universe can't possibly be eternal etc, and in order to explain its existence there has to be a God with these properties. You are creating a God, a consciousness with these properties, in order to explain the apparent lack of these qualities in the Universe. Why would you not throw away the assumption that the Universe doesn't have these properties instead of arguing for the necessity of God? The first one is obviously less complex. Your statement at the end doesn't even make any relevant sense, you're simply pulling rhetoric out of nowhere with multiple concepts like "cause and effect" and "meaning" to draw attention away from the fact that your argument is ridiculously empty in practically every way possible.

 

 

 

Also, beings with a consciousness are far greater designers than nature. Sure, nature is beautiful but when you compare even the most beautiful photograph with the most beautiful painting then it puts things into perspective. Beings with a consciousness can create beauty and manipulate nature into seeming even more beautiful. Nature does it by complete accident. I see the world as something too miraculous to be a creation of nature alone.

 

 

 

Beauty is entirely subjective, thus is your entire system of measurement here. You are using a common trick; you are saying, by the use of two phrases tied to each other in a short space of time (greater designers) - (more beautiful), that one necessarily follows the other. Now technically, ones' opinion of what being a "greater designer" entails will always include being "more beautiful," this isn't the contention I am making. What I am saying is that the measurement of beauty here is completely random and meaningful only to the individual.

 

 

 

Now please, read my argument.

 

 

 

Your idea that the Universe (the most complex physical thing) requires a God in order to explain it because the Universe cannot have the property of having existed forever, is more complex and requires more assumptions than the idea that the Universe has that quality in the first place. Now of course, we aren't claiming to know this. The veracity of any of these claims is irrelevant, because all we need to apply is logic. Logic concerns itself not with the truth of the argument. Your claim requires more assumptions than the other claim. That is all there is to it.

[Zierro]

If I see a logical fallacy I'm going to point it out, not save it up for later so I can win some random internet argument

 

 

 

What are you talking about? You're the one who engaged in the logical fallacy - you told me I said something which I did not. I'm telling you (sarcastically) to save using them yourself for later - I'm not telling you to save pointing out mine for later. If you see any, then you can definitely let me know.

 

 

 

The issue here is not semantics, but rather you choosing something more complex than the original thing being described, in order to describe that thing. It requires more to believe in God than to believe the Universe has quality of having existed forever.

 

 

 

Yes, I was fully aware of your false dichotomy trap but the way in which I worded my response completely evaded it. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

 

 

You asked, "Which is more complex? The universe being here forever or god?"

 

 

 

I responded, "The idea that god doesn't exist and our lives are an accident is a more complex assumption than believing he was the one who made us."

 

 

 

The issue is semantics because you twisted my very own words by trying to tell me I said "God is not a complex being".

 

 

 

I wasn't saying that "everything is a complete accident." I do think this, but so what?

 

 

 

I predicted your beliefs with insufficient data and I was correct. See, faith isn't always dangerous.

 

 

 

Simply put, you're trying to divert the previous argument onto other topics and play the "atheist pessimist" card.

 

 

 

Your entire argument derailed from my initial point with Shinjula. I didn't know you had a problem with being a little off topic, because you did so yourself.

 

 

 

You are missing the point. You are arguing that the Universe can't possibly be eternal etc, and in order to explain its existence there has to be a God with these properties. You are creating a God, a consciousness with these properties, in order to explain the apparent lack of these qualities in the Universe.

 

 

 

There has to be an answer. The universe having an infinite amount of causes doesn't make logical sense. All you are doing is throwing creationism under the bus with this one. Would you like to explain to me how something with an infinite amount of causes can exist? I'd love to hear it.

 

 

 

Oh and plus there is the fact that science states that our universe has begun to exist a finite 13.7 billion years ago. If anyone is fabricating complex possibilities of how the universe came to be, it is you by bringing up this "superuniverse" which you speak of.

 

 

 

Your statement at the end doesn't even make any relevant sense, you're simply pulling rhetoric out of nowhere with multiple concepts like "cause and effect" and "meaning" to draw attention away from the fact that your argument is ridiculously empty in practically every way possible.

 

 

 

Oh please. You are drawing attention away from the main argument too by continuously making posts like this.

 

 

 

What I am saying is that the measurement of beauty here is completely random and meaningful only to the individual.

 

 

 

Completely random? Are you sure about that? If this is the case then there would be about an equal number of people who adore manure as there are who adore the sunset. This is not true. You will find many more fans of the beauty of sunsets.

 

 

 

Your idea that the Universe (the most complex physical thing) requires a God in order to explain it because the Universe cannot have the property of having existed forever, is more complex and requires more assumptions than the idea that the Universe has that quality in the first place. Now of course, we aren't claiming to know this. The veracity of any of these claims is irrelevant, because all we need to apply is logic. Logic concerns itself not with the truth of the argument. Your claim requires more assumptions than the other claim. That is all there is to it.

 

 

 

Assuming everything in life is an accident and assuming that something with an infinite amount of causes can exist aren't assumptions? SAY WHAT? :shock:

 

 

 

I have a present for you:

 

 

 

The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempt to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe.

 

 

 

AND

 

 

 

Richard Dawkins, among other atheists, thinks he has the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist. If God created a complex universe, wouldn't it take an even more complex entity to have created God? However, such logic assumes that time has always existed, rather than being merely a construct of this universe.

[Lenticular_J]

We could be the creators of our Creator. I don't mean in some snide way, literally.

 

 

 

You mean we created God, as in we just made him up?

 

No, that's the way I was trying to avoid. We could have created God through our belief in Him. A sort of hero syndrome - you create a hero by believing in them. I see human belief as a very powerful tool.

[Housepig]

We could be the creators of our Creator. I don't mean in some snide way, literally.

 

 

 

You mean we created God, as in we just made him up?

 

No, that's the way I was trying to avoid. We could have created God through our belief in Him. A sort of hero syndrome - you create a hero by believing in them. I see human belief as a very powerful tool.

 

 

 

So, you're saying that God only exists in our minds and only because we believe in him? But that's very similar to believing we made him up: the only difference is whether the original theologins believed it themseleves, or whether they knew it was a lie.

 

 

 

Or did I misunderstand you--did you mean we literaly, physicaly created God by believing in him?

[i_love_burritos]

We could be the creators of our Creator. I don't mean in some snide way, literally.

 

 

 

You mean we created God, as in we just made him up?

 

No, that's the way I was trying to avoid. We could have created God through our belief in Him. A sort of hero syndrome - you create a hero by believing in them. I see human belief as a very powerful tool.

 

 

 

So, you're saying that God only exists in our minds and only because we believe in him? But that's very similar to believing we made him up: the only difference is whether the original theologins believed it themseleves, or whether they knew it was a lie.

 

 

 

Or did I misunderstand you--did you mean we literaly, physicaly created God by believing in him?

 

 

 

That borders on the absurd.

[Lenticular_J]

I find life to be pretty absurd. But it's what I think happened.

 

 

 

So the latter, house.

[Zierro]

Warrior and Venomai, I reread our posts and I think I know where the confusion lies.

 

 

 

I said that atheism is both a lack of belief and a belief. Atheism has strong atheism and weak atheism under it, so when I say atheism has these two properties I'm merely saying that strong and weak combined have the two properties therefore these properties both belong under atheism. I think you interpreted it as me saying "all atheism has both properties" and then I would bring up the definitions and it seemed contradictory.

 

 

 

And like I said, I'm not specifically arguing against your beliefs although it might have come off that way. I'm sorry for sounding personal. Lately I've been considering evidence of god and I basically use this thread for the fun of debating because it's just full of opportunities. :)

[hihihi727]

wow i missed alot of the conversation i will post after i come back from soccer training :wall:

[adam1480]

This was a post that was going to turn into a flame war no matter what happened, you don't care what people say your not going to let random people you don't even know decide your religion for you. Decide for yourself, in the end thats what your going to end up doing anyway.

[mmmcannibalism]

This was a post that was going to turn into a flame war no matter what happened, you don't care what people say your not going to let random people you don't even know decide your religion for you. Decide for yourself, in the end thats what your going to end up doing anyway.

 

 

 

I take it your a fatalist?

[lobsta]

Well, judging by the awesomeness of this world, I'd say it's more complex that everything just happened by accident and the more reasonable answer is that a divine creator exists in this equation. This is an opinionated and biased answer though, so of course I wouldn't expect you to agree. :)

 

 

 

So in order to explain the Universe, the most complex physical thing, you're going to argue for the necessity of an even more complex consciousness that has existed eternally?

 

 

 

Don't try and claim that God is less complex. God created the Universe apparently, he can't possibly be less complex.

 

 

 

The attributes which you say the Universe cannot, or does not have, you give to God.

 

 

 

If you're going to be making wild assumptions, why would you not just assume that the Universe has always existed? Why would you fathom a complex consciousness, with a load of other stuff to go with it, in order to explain something when you could come up with an infinite number of explanations that are less complex and more likely?

 

 

 

There is also an infinite regression. You can't just say "God did it!", because who did God? Where did God come from? You're willing to say that God just exists, but you say this is impossible for the Universe?

 

I agree with this. God always seems to get a 'get out of jail free card'. It is utterly absurd to believe that God is less complex than the universe. You never see a spear making a spear maker... Even if God were less complex than the universe, it still doesn't actually explain how the universe was created. How did God create it? How was something less complex able to make something more complex? God does not solve the problem of how the universe was created. God only aggravates the issue.

 

How can anyone simply 'know' that God exists. Surely it is far better to admit that we do not know how the universe was created.

[EdgedThesis]

This was how the Universe began...

 

 

 

God, capable of everything, sought to challenge his power.

 

He had already proved able to create or destroy anything.

 

 

 

He bent the rules of everything around him. What more was there to do, for someone so powerful?

 

Then it struck.

 

 

 

Was he so powerful that he could destroy himself?

 

 

 

Such destruction would prove to be the greatest feat of all--the death of something that could create all else.

 

 

 

And so God destroyed himself, with one, big bang.

[Millard]

Of course God exists, who else wrote the bible?

[brunokiller]

Of course God exists, who else wrote the bible?

 

 

 

Some ancient dudes with way too much free time and fantasy?

[Dizzle229]

Of course God exists, who else wrote the bible?

 

 

 

Erm, even every CHRISTIAN knows that God did not literally write the Bible himself.

 

 

 

I don't think it's question of whether or not God exists, but a question of what God is. It's almost certainly not the way it's portrayed in the Bible.

[Millard]

Of course God exists, who else wrote the bible?

 

 

 

Erm, even every CHRISTIAN knows that God did not literally write the Bible himself.

 

 

 

I don't think it's question of whether or not God exists, but a question of what God is. It's almost certainly not the way it's portrayed in the Bible.

 

 

 

I go to a Christian school, and i was taught that the Bible is God's autobiography about the time he came down from heaven and was viscously killed by Jews for no apparent reason.

[Dizzle229]

Of course God exists, who else wrote the bible?

 

 

 

Erm, even every CHRISTIAN knows that God did not literally write the Bible himself.

 

 

 

I don't think it's question of whether or not God exists, but a question of what God is. It's almost certainly not the way it's portrayed in the Bible.

 

 

 

I got to a Christian school, and i was taught that the Bible is God's autobiography about the time he came down from heaven and was viscously killed by Jews for no apparent reason.

 

Wasn't Jesus born Jewish?

 

 

 

I believe he was. You Christian school is teaching you very wrong. Jesus was born Jewish, and later began preaching the word of God. He basically wanted people to be good to each other. He was killed by the Romans because he went against what they believed I think, which is weird considering later the Bible was published by the Romans.

 

 

 

That last sentence is just iirc though.

[EdgedThesis]

He kept talking about the "Kingdom of his Father" (Heaven, of course), and the Romans thought he was talking about an actual kingdom.

 

This was treason.

 

 

 

People didn't really care about the state religion, it was more a nationalistic than religious thing.

 

 

 

There was probably more than one cause. Barihawk, I think, could shed light on this.

[RichieMcD]

Of course God exists, who else wrote the bible?

 

 

 

Erm, even every CHRISTIAN knows that God did not literally write the Bible himself.

 

 

 

I don't think it's question of whether or not God exists, but a question of what God is. It's almost certainly not the way it's portrayed in the Bible.

 

 

 

I go to a Christian school, and i was taught that the Bible is God's autobiography about the time he came down from heaven and was viscously killed by Jews for no apparent reason.

 

 

 

Really, contradicts what I've heard, from the priests in my Catholic school, from the priests who work in my area, from practically any priest I've heard talk about the matter.

 

 

 

What they've all said? Jesus was the son of God sent down to show us the light and relieve us of our sins. Was the Bible written by Jesus? No, the first book of it was written 20-30 years later, I forget by which disciple though.

 

 

 

If you want to actually explore a religion, the last person I would listen to for it's facts are those who preach it, read the bible yourself, not by those who tell about it. Would be rather odd that "God" wrote the book in 3rd person then eh?

 

 

 

Your opinion seems to be something formed by watching "The passion" or whatever it's called, Jesus wasn't killed by the Jews, he was killed by the Romans and the defining fact many mention, has very few credible resources to practically none. (I.e the choice to let Barabbas go or free Jesus instead)

[Zierro]

God always seems to get a 'get out of jail free card'.

 

 

 

How does this come as a surprise? After all, we're talking about god here, not human beings or laws of physics where there are definite boundaries. Let's face it, there are going to be answers that are completely irrational in the eyes of humans (how did the universe begin?). No matter how you want to explain it, it's still not going to make sense in a scientific point of view or a theological point of view. Like I said before, there has to be an answer and god is the only thing that fits in the puzzle, as he is the only one who can defy logic (and logic will definitely be defied in order to answer the question).

 

 

 

It is utterly absurd to believe that God is less complex than the universe.

 

 

 

Looks like we agree on something. :) God is more complex than the universe since he created it. However, going by Occam's Razor, the idea of a universe being god-free seems like a more complex idea (the fact that everything in life was an accident) than the idea that the universe has a creator (everything has purpose as opposed to having no purpose). A universe with purpose seems a lot more rational than a universe without any if you ask me.

[RichieMcD]

 

 

 

It is utterly absurd to believe that God is less complex than the universe.

 

 

 

Looks like we agree on something. :) God is more complex than the universe since he created it. However, going by Occam's Razor, the idea of a universe being god-free seems like a more complex idea (the fact that everything in life was an accident) than the idea that the universe has a creator (everything has purpose as opposed to having no purpose). A universe with purpose seems a lot more rational than a universe without any if you ask me.

 

 

 

If you ask me though, the theory of a creator appearing out of nowhere with the ability to create what has occurred, it's just as irrational. Just because "God" created the universe, how does that give it a purpose?

 

 

 

The theory of a creator is rather rational, but the way in which most religions preach about is pretty irrational as well.

[Omar]

you don't care what people say your not going to let random people you don't even know decide your religion for you. Decide for yourself, in the end thats what your going to end up doing anyway.

 

Because someone can't speak to you in person, that makes their opinion and reasoning on religion immediately invalid?

[Zierro]

Just because "God" created the universe, how does that give it a purpose?

 

 

 

While it does not automatically lead to us having a purpose, it does look a lot better for us than if there was no creator. If something is created that implies that someone is striving to achieve an objective through the means of an entity. Think of a builder - he makes the a chimney (entity) in order to release smoke (objective).

 

 

 

The theory of a creator is rather rational, but the way in which most religions preach about is pretty irrational as well.

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more. If you ask me, religion is just a wall in the way of god. That's another issue though. :lol:

[Lenticular_J]

I agree with this. God always seems to get a 'get out of jail free card'. It is utterly absurd to believe that God is less complex than the universe. You never see a spear making a spear maker... Even if God were less complex than the universe, it still doesn't actually explain how the universe was created. How did God create it? How was something less complex able to make something more complex? God does not solve the problem of how the universe was created. God only aggravates the issue.

 

How can anyone simply 'know' that God exists. Surely it is far better to admit that we do not know how the universe was created.

 

Well, who says this universe is all their is. According to that one thread ages ago, there is a very plausible train of thought towards their being more than one universe. Which means, in turn, there could be something larger than that. Perhaps God was just some random dude in the ultra-universe, where our galaxies are just little electrons, and plugged in a lamp or something. I mean, I don't believe it. Just kinda throwing it out there. So I guess that wouldn't mean He'd be all that complex. I dunno.

 

 

 

And for the last sentence, nobody on either "side" of this religion divide thinks it's better to admit that.

 

 

 

Alright, I've noticed a lotta people talking about Jesus' life. I'm not gonna speak from the Bible, but from research into Jesus' life as a man. He was born. And He was very smart. He was, however, poor. His parents loved him very much, especially His mother. So, he decided, "Wow, it really sucks here." Bandits were killing people left and right, the Romans were complete [wagon], and the Jewish priests at the one center of Jew life, Solomon's Temple, were also pretty much buttholes.

 

 

 

So. Jesus wandered for a while. Then he met a guy named John the Baptist. Basically, he taught Jesus a lot of the things involving dogma and the cleansing of sin. He baptized Jesus and was soon killed by the Romans, who were influenced strongly by the priests.

 

 

 

Then, Jesus went around teaching things, namely things to help your fellow Man. Judaism was definitely far better for the rich in those times than the poor. That's one reason Christianity caught on so well, half the striving was to make everyone equal.

 

 

 

So, he went around, building up a following, and then, supposedly, Jesus got sold out by Judas (although many have started to think Jesus asked Judas to do this, to prevent him from following the urge of running away). Romans/Jewish priests caught him, and, well, punished him.

 

 

 

I skipped a lot in His life because too much is parables and whatnot.

[Zierro]

Well, who says this universe is all their is.

 

 

 

I'm no scientist but doesn't the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prove that the universe did not exist for an infinite amount of time? I remember reading something like that from Insane's posts.