Is God real post your thoughts!

[Ambassadar]

So the gist is that there's no such thing as carring forward sins from our ancestors like genetic traits, we're all just sinners due to our own imperfection?

 

 

 

Here is my understanding from what I have read.

 

 

 

Adam and Eve were created without sin. They had no concept of sin. God would even directly converse with them. Since they didn't have any sin in their lives they weren't separated from God. He gave them one rule which was the only way they could possibly sin and they broke it. When they broke it they had sin in their life and it separated them from God. They also gained the ability to know the difference between good and evil.

 

 

 

This broke the "deal" God had set up with man. God loves man but hates sin. There are many examples of this in the Bible. Somehow their sin broke that special bond between man and God and man lost the ability to not sin.

 

 

 

 

 

This is personal opinion from what I have read but I think what was passed down from Adam and Eve's sin is that we are incapable of not sinning. All of us will sin. Some kind of "sin nature" is now in us. As to the whole is there some kind of residual sin passed down where before someone even sins on their own they are still condemned from Adam's failure? I don't know. I do know it doesn't say anything about that in Genesis when Adam and Eve sin. It basically just says they are kicked out of the Garden of Eden, that woman from then on will have to bear children in pain and man will have to slave away farming the earth for food.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul sums up what I think of when I think of the results of the original sin Adam committed. It is him describing how we don't have the ability to not sin.

 

 

 

" I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

 

 

 

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Sly_Wizard]

I don't think of "God" as a cop-out, I think of it as one of the possible explanations, because concepts such as the 'beginning of time' cannot be explained within logical limitations or human understanding. Something that exists, must have been created somehow.. But how can something come out of nothing while having existed for an eternity? :?

 

 

 

Human understanding is limited, hence the fallacy in trying to argue God's non-existence in a natural sense.

 

 

 

Eternity is a logical fallacy, because it doesn't have a beginning, ending or a creator, thus it shouldn't exist. How can time exist then?

 

 

 

Time is a system created by those whose lives end in death. It has no meaning to those things which have no beginning nor an end.

 

 

 

Edit: Since no one read my first post, I'll simplify it: Evil exists because God wants it to exist (See: Job). Since good and evil are relative, one would never know 'good' unless it had a comparitive equal.

[warri0r45]

So the gist is that there's no such thing as carring forward sins from our ancestors like genetic traits, we're all just sinners due to our own imperfection?

 

 

 

Here is my understanding from what I have read.

 

 

 

Adam and Eve were created without sin. They had no concept of sin. God would even directly converse with them. Since they didn't have any sin in their lives they weren't separated from God. He gave them one rule which was the only way they could possibly sin and they broke it. When they broke it they had sin in their life and it separated them from God. They also gained the ability to know the difference between good and evil.

 

 

 

This broke the "deal" God had set up with man. God loves man but hates sin. There are many examples of this in the Bible. Somehow their sin broke that special bond between man and God and man lost the ability to not sin.

 

 

 

 

 

This is personal opinion from what I have read but I think what was passed down from Adam and Eve's sin is that we are incapable of not sinning. All of us will sin. Some kind of "sin nature" is now in us. As to the whole is there some kind of residual sin passed down where before someone even sins on their own they are still condemned from Adam's failure? I don't know. I do know it doesn't say anything about that in Genesis when Adam and Eve sin. It basically just says they are kicked out of the Garden of Eden, that woman from then on will have to bear children in pain and man will have to slave away farming the earth for food.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul sums up what I think of when I think of the results of the original sin Adam committed. It is him describing how we don't have the ability to not sin.

 

 

 

" I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

 

 

 

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[BlueLancer]

 

Edit: Since no one read my first post, I'll simplify it: Evil exists because God wants it to exist (See: Job). Since good and evil are relative, one would never know 'good' unless it had a comparitive equal.

 

 

 

That's not logical or empirical evidence, the book of Job is not an authoritative text written by God, hence the statement "evil exists because God wants it to exist" is false. Job, as well as the Bible, are human works of literature. They are only "divine" in the minds of the people who follow that particular religion.

 

 

 

 

Time is a system created by those whose lives end in death. It has no meaning to those things which have no beginning nor an end.

 

 

 

While it's true time is just a measurement made by humans, it is an accurate one because it doesn't fail:

 

 

 

Time

 

 

 

Periodic events and periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples are the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, the swing of a pendulum, heartbeats, etc. Currently, the unit of time interval (the second) is defined as a certain number of hyperfine transitions in Cesium atoms

 

 

 

Even if we didn't make up a system to measure time, it still would be there. What happened 300 trillion heartbeats ago? What was the world like 520 million full moons ago?

[Sly_Wizard]

That's not logical or empirical evidence, the book of Job is not an authoritative text written by God, hence the statement "evil exists because God wants it to exist" is false. Job, as well as the Bible, are human works of literature. They are only "divine" in the minds of the people who follow that particular religion.

 

 

 

If you're going to mention logic, then it'd help to argue logically. Logic is built on assumptions, as assumptions are necessary in order to construct arguments. Since you didn't read my first post, then I suggest you read this:

 

 

 

http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/han ... fense.html

 

 

 

Oh, and since you mentioned it, 'prove' that the Bible wasn't inspired by God ;)

[Ambassadar]

So in one way or another we do inevitably pay for original sin, be it through any residual inherent evil or the condition of painful childbirth, etc. Why then does god not judge each of us according to our merits? Why not give us all the chance to pick the fruit or not and not just have the consequence thrown at all of mankind? I see this as unfair.

 

 

 

Also, I see the act of knowing a snake would come and tempt our curiosity, a natural trait of man, to eat the fruit and thus damn us to sinful nature when god does not want this as counter intuitive.

 

 

 

If what happened with Adam's original sin and it's consequences was the whole story I would completely agree with you. However, in a way we have the same choice as Adam.

 

 

 

For Adam:

 

He could either obey and follow God and remain sinless in God's eyes or he could disobey God and be sinful in God's eyes.

 

 

 

For us:

 

We can either obey and follow Jesus and in God's eyes be sinless since Jesus paid for our sins or we can turn our back on Jesus and be sinful in God's eyes since we wouldn't be accepting Jesus' payment for our sins.

[warri0r45]

So in one way or another we do inevitably pay for original sin, be it through any residual inherent evil or the condition of painful childbirth, etc. Why then does god not judge each of us according to our merits? Why not give us all the chance to pick the fruit or not and not just have the consequence thrown at all of mankind? I see this as unfair.

 

 

 

Also, I see the act of knowing a snake would come and tempt our curiosity, a natural trait of man, to eat the fruit and thus damn us to sinful nature when god does not want this as counter intuitive.

 

 

 

If what happened with Adam's original sin and it's consequences was the whole story I would completely agree with you. However, in a way we have the same choice as Adam.

 

 

 

For Adam:

 

He could either obey and follow God and remain sinless in God's eyes or he could disobey God and be sinful in God's eyes.

 

 

 

For us:

 

We can either obey and follow Jesus and in God's eyes be sinless since Jesus paid for our sins or we can turn our back on Jesus and be sinful in God's eyes since we wouldn't be accepting Jesus' payment for our sins.

 

 

 

Yet we're still stuck here brewing in a sea of our own sin and suffering. Adam had to endure no such thing. As a result of his choice and god's descision not to let me have the same choice independant of Adam, I'm left with a life of sin and suffering. Still don't see this as fair (especially if you substitute me for some kid in Africa). The choice to be able to avoid what Adam could not is still irrelevant to the point that I'm indirectly paying for his mistakes.

[venomai]

Even if we didn't make up a system to measure time, it still would be there.

 

This is just one view of time. The article discusses alternative views on time.

 

 

 

More interesting quotes from the same article...

 

In general, the Judaeo-Christian concept, based on the Bible, is that time is linear, with a beginning, the act of creation by God.

 

The wheel of time or wheel of history is a concept in several religions and philosophies, notably religions of Indian origin such as Buddhism and Hinduism, which regard time as cyclical and consisting of repeating ages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like this idea, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I 'believe' in it. How do you combat something like the paradox of time having been forever before this point in time, for example? I understand vaguely the idea that time itself is cyclic in some of these cyclic universe ideas. Does this solve the paradox? Your thoughts?

 

Before which point? There is no point of origin in the cyclic model -- as I understand it, the universe has infinitely existed, and therefore so has time.

 

 

 

What is the start point of a sin function?

 

[Range_This11]

Range...

 

 

 

Why are you calling yourself a Christian and then proceeding to make statements that say opposite what Christ and the Bible say and then end saying you are agnostic?

 

 

 

Just wondering since the equivalent of your post would be someone making a post saying they were a libertarian communist.

 

 

 

Because I'm 18 now, and I was a Christian for about 15 years. So I've been a non-believer for about 3 years now.

[warri0r45]

Even if we didn't make up a system to measure time, it still would be there.

 

This is just one view of time. The article discusses alternative views on time.

 

 

 

More interesting quotes from the same article...

 

In general, the Judaeo-Christian concept, based on the Bible, is that time is linear, with a beginning, the act of creation by God.

 

The wheel of time or wheel of history is a concept in several religions and philosophies, notably religions of Indian origin such as Buddhism and Hinduism, which regard time as cyclical and consisting of repeating ages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like this idea, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I 'believe' in it. How do you combat something like the paradox of time having been forever before this point in time, for example? I understand vaguely the idea that time itself is cyclic in some of these cyclic universe ideas. Does this solve the paradox? Your thoughts?

 

Before which point? There is no point of origin in the cyclic model -- as I understand it, the universe has infinitely existed, and therefore so has time.

 

 

 

What is the start point of a sin function?

 

 

 

 

Hmm. The sine function is a simple example but it makes a good point - it's not as if you'd have to 'make up' an infinite amount of repetitions of the function between it's infinite past and the present observation point - in that sense it's totally arbitrary which repition of the function you're looking at. Perhaps that's how these models look at time (you could probably clarify if this is the case?) - it's always been but it's irrelevant saying 'past' or 'future' cycles because they're just all arbitraty points in the cyclic repetition of the function. As a result of all that, the notion of the entire model having been created, i.e. an event implying the past, would be kind of null and void, considering there is no start to the model. :-k :shock:

 

 

 

I'm probably getting in over my head. Philosophy is not my forte, but I can see how the linnear view of time has had it good in general thought in western culture. Interesting. Great example, it really cuts through.

[venomai]

Oh, and since you mentioned it, 'prove' that the Bible wasn't inspired by God

 

Let's try to stick to the basics. Prove that God exists, then we can go on to prove that he influenced the Bible. ;)

 

 

 

Perhaps that's how these models look at time (you could probably clarify if this is the case?) - it's always been but it's irrelevant saying 'past' or 'future' cycles because they're just all arbitraty points in the cyclic repetition of the function.

 

The model says that "past" and "future" -- two terms which are based on our human-made measuring system -- are things that have always existed, along with time itself.

 

 

 

The more I wrap my head around the cyclic model, the more complex it seems to be. If time has no beginning and no end, which direction does it travel in? What if time doesn't go "forward" or "backward" at all?

 

 

 

Here's the traditional view of time, with a beginning and a clear direction (as shown by the arrow head). According to this, time is always progressing forward, the measurable values of time are ever-increasing from the point of origin.

 

 

 

 

Here's an alternate view of time. As you can see here, time always exists and has no clear direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mind boggling, eh? :P

[NinjaChicken]

I don't believe in God in the sense that he created the world and is watching us right now. There is too much evidence supporting evolution. If some divine power, or any power greater than us, began life on Earth, it is long gone.

 

 

 

This is what a lot of people get wrong. Science and God go together perfectly. Is it really possible that a earth so complex could have been made by chance without the influence of a higher being? I'm not saying that God really made the world in six days, some of the bible must not be taken literary.

 

 

 

Science also tells us that the universe was made by a big bang. Firstly, i would like to point out that the big bang is just a theory and has not been proven. Having said that, i believe that the Big Bang did happen. But, science also tells us that the big bang was caused by tiny dust particles rubbing against each other over billions of years causing enough friction to make a big explosion. Now, how did these dust particles get there from nothing? There must have been an influence from a higher being?

 

 

 

So to answer the question first asked; i do believe in God and believing in God has changed my life for the better.

[Sly_Wizard]

Let's try to stick to the basics. Prove that God exists, then we can go on to prove that he influenced the Bible. ;)

 

 

 

I'll make this really simple for you; Accepting the basic axioms of Christianity-- Or any other religion for that matter-- To be true, then God exists (And before someone decides to say "But religious axioms can't presuppose the existence of God!", I'd like to point out that "God exists" isn't a religious axiom. Religious axioms are NEVER that obvious; Just ask Mr. Aquinas).

 

 

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, science doesn't aim to prove anything, but rather to disprove the null hypothesis. By definition, God can never be proven through scienfitic means as it's impossible to disprove an unknown. It'd be akin to making a concrete statement regarding the existence of aliens based on the fact that one has never been observed.

[warri0r45]

I don't believe in God in the sense that he created the world and is watching us right now. There is too much evidence supporting evolution. If some divine power, or any power greater than us, began life on Earth, it is long gone.

 

 

 

This is what a lot of people get wrong. Science and God go together perfectly. Is it really possible that a earth so complex could have been made by chance without the influence of a higher being? I'm not saying that God really made the world in six days, some of the bible must not be taken literary.

 

 

 

Science also tells us that the universe was made by a big bang. Firstly, i would like to point out that the big bang is just a theory and has not been proven. Having said that, i believe that the Big Bang did happen. But, science also tells us that the big bang was caused by tiny dust particles rubbing against each other over billions of years causing enough friction to make a big explosion. Now, how did these dust particles get there from nothing? There must have been an influence from a higher being?

 

 

 

So to answer the question first asked; i do believe in God and believing in God has changed my life for the better.

 

 

 

4 things:

 

 

 

1) Evolution is not random.

 

2) Where did you read that dust particles caused the big bang? That sounds like absolute and utter rubbish from what I know. Source please.

 

3) You don't 'prove' things in science (as Sly_wizard correctly pointed out), not the least of which being theory. Theory is a system of explanation regarding a series of phenomena incorporating tested hypotheses, observations, principles and other great stuff linked in some logical framework. 'Theory' in science does not imply a lower level of certainty.

 

4) How did this 'god' character get there from nothing? Influence from a higher being? People seem not to apply this consideration because the personified character of 'god' seems to do nicely. But, he seems to make people feel better, as you've shown, so good for you (in a genuinely non-condescending way).

[Wisp]

God is real, but in my opinion he doesn't exist.

 

I am an atheist, but he is real in the way that he has affected more people then a single person probably ever could. The fact is that god, whether or not he is truly real, has caused more changed to happen in the world (by the way, i am speaking of gods in general, not just the christian god) then any other specific person.

[warren211]

And am I correct in assuming you listen to these black metal bands (like cradle of filth for one, judging by your name) and think that they are "satanic"? I would hope you are not being influenced by them in your thinking....

 

 

 

I'm not being influenced, but why would got torment the people he put on this world.

 

 

 

~Joe.

 

 

 

How does HE torment us? By letting us cause our own downfall? Its OUR fault the world is what it is, not God's. He gave us free will. otherwise, were no more than his puppets which he can take out his amusement on. Our free will makes us like him more then anything. Animals have no free will, they have their instincts of survival. Lions will readily kill a deer because of survival. Humans might think twice, or might kill the lion for sheer pleasure.

 

 

 

So where does this free will thing go now? well, God lets us run our own world. Giving us independence, kind of like a mother who lets her son move out to his own house. Now we as humans, like the son in this example, can do whatever we want to our space. We can protect it like God told us, or we can trash it. God, like the mother, will give us reminders here and there, try to tell us to help keep the earth/the room clean and stay respectful of others. But the mother would not come down to the son's apartment and clean it (like God not interfering with earth's downfall) while the son messes it up again (like how we continue to sin).

 

 

 

If God were to help us every time something bad happened, we'd end up depending on God for every little thing. We would lie around, letting the world go to ruin and when its bad enough, call God back to clean it up, then we start messing it up again. We'd be equivalent to that same son, who moves back to the mother's house and stays there until he's 40 just because he's afraid of what the outside world can do to him, or does not want the responsibility coupled with the independence of living alone.

[BlueLancer]

 

How does HE torment us? By letting us cause our own downfall? Its OUR fault the world is what it is, not God's. He gave us free will. otherwise, were no more than his puppets which he can take out his amusement on. Our free will makes us like him more then anything. Animals have no free will, they have their instincts of survival. Lions will readily kill a deer because of survival. Humans might think twice, or might kill the lion for sheer pleasure.

 

 

 

That's a blatant misconception. In reality humans (including you and me) aren't so morally pure. We are animals. We can only "think twice" and care for others because we now live in civilized societies with an overflow of food/resources, no natural predators, etc...

 

 

 

If you had a way to watch your ancestors lives 4000 years ago, it wouldn't be anything pretty to watch... It's the way nature is, but I'm willing to bet both your and my ancestors have a lot of blood on their hands, including that of numerous other human beings. Not that we should bear their burden, just saying we are just the same, only born in a more fortunate/developed world.

[venomai]

I'll make this really simple for you; Accepting the basic axioms of Christianity-- Or any other religion for that matter-- To be true, then God exists (And before someone decides to say "But religious axioms can't presuppose the existence of God!", I'd like to point out that "God exists" isn't a religious axiom. Religious axioms are NEVER that obvious; Just ask Mr. Aquinas).

 

Ok...

 

I accept the atheistic axiom that God does not exist, and that God did not influence the Bible. I have now "disproved" your earlier statement by showing it to be untrue. :-k

 

 

 

I don't see why religious axioms should be any basis for concrete truth. :-s

 

 

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, science doesn't aim to prove anything, but rather to disprove the null hypothesis. By definition, God can never be proven through scienfitic means as it's impossible to disprove an unknown. It'd be akin to making a concrete statement regarding the existence of aliens based on the fact that one has never been observed.

 

You agree with me, then. God can't be proven, and therefore God can't be disproven. What's the point in arguing about it? :?:

[rileycore]

I don't. I'm completely Atheist.

 

 

 

 

 

Though, I do believe in "Holy crap (pun?) this is going to geto ut of hand fast"

[Sly_Wizard]

I accept the atheistic axiom that God does not exist, and that God did not influence the Bible. I have now "disproved" your earlier statement by showing it to be untrue. :-k

 

 

 

This why I don't debate with non-logic/philosphy majors on religious matters. Anywho...

 

 

 

"God does (Not) exist" isn't an axiom as you can't presuppose the (non-) existence of God. If I were to say, for example, "God exists because I assume He does", you'd jump all over that argument (And rightfully so), because it's circular. "God does (Not) exist" is the conclusion. In order to derive that conclusion, you use a set of premises. Granted, you could assume just about any premise you want, but that doesn't mean you're argument would be a sound one. This is going to be an extreme oversimplification, but it's only to demonstrate a point. An atheist type axiom would be something like this:

 

 

 

The universe was created by the Big Bang.

 

God doesn't exist.

 

 

 

Given your initial premise, you conclude that God doesn't exist (This isn't to say you're right, as it could very well be wrong, but rather that your argument is logically valid). Of course, axioms are never this easy to distinguish as Thomas Aquinas (And other major philosophers) have found out. Most atheists seem unable to distinguish between a religious axiom and a conglomeration of religious practices which have accrued over thousands of years. Why do you think we're on a 2000 year old debate about God's existence?

 

 

 

As for the issues of faith, I happen to like Kierkegaard's statement that faith only starts by conceeding the limits of human understanding. Granted, this too is a bit of a simplification, but it's the best I can do without typing out paragraphs upon paragraphs.

 

 

 

I don't see why religious axioms should be any basis for concrete truth. :-s

 

 

 

Typically one doesn't respond to a question with a question, but I'll make an exception in this case. Assuming you live in the United States, why do you accept the following statement to be true?

 

 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[BlueLancer]

 

Typically one doesn't respond to a question with a question, but I'll make an exception in this case. Assuming you live in the United States, why do you accept the following statement to be true?

 

 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

 

 

Despite god existing or not, he didn't create me or any other people who are currently alive. My creator is my father/mother just like everyone else's...

 

 

 

Not to mention, the constitution was written hundreds of years ago when it was almost necessary for a politician to at least 'express' signs of the faith even if not being religious.

 

 

 

It could be just as well amended to be the following and not lose any of it's meaning:

 

 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

 

 

See? It doesn't matter "who" or "what" granted the people those unalienable rights. They exist because people agree they should.

 

 

 

It's not like those rights and values came off the Bible. The Bible even supports slavery and unconditional female servitude to the husband, with scant regard to "individual rights"...

[Sly_Wizard]

Despite god existing or not, he didn't create me or any other people who are currently alive. My creator is my father/mother just like everyone else's...

 

 

 

Irrelevant. That's not the point being made.

 

 

 

Not to mention, the constitution was written hundreds of years ago when it was almost necessary for a politician to at least 'express' signs of the faith even if not being religious.

 

 

 

Also irrelevant and had nothing to do with anything I typed out thus far.

 

 

 

Since you missed the point being made, I'll try to simplify:

 

 

 

AXIOMS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SELF-EVIDENT. THEY'RE NOT TRUE BECAUSE THEY NECESSARILY ARE TRUE, BUT RATHER THEY'RE TRUE BECAUSE WE TAKE THEM FOR GRANTED IN ASSUMING THEY'RE TRUE.

 

 

 

From there, we use said axioms to derive logical conclusions regarding just about whatever we want. In other words, by accepting X as true, then Y must also be true. Understand?

 

 

 

It's not like those rights and values came off the Bible. The Bible even supports slavery and unconditional female servitude to the husband, with scant regard to "individual rights"...

 

 

 

More irrelevency.

[BlueLancer]

Axioms are considered to be self-evident. They're not true because they're necessarily true, but rather they're true because we take them for granted in assuming they're true.

 

 

 

So since everything else was irrelevant, I figured this is the point you're trying to make:

 

 

 

Assuming you live in the United States, why do you accept the following statement to be true?

 

 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

 

 

I don't get it. Are you implying every american accepts that "God" gave those rights to all americans? That's not quite true, people accept those values brought to the US by the founding fathers, regardless of mentioning the "creator" or not, because they are proper values which, by logic and rationality, should belong to everyone even without a written manifest.

 

 

 

"God does (Not) exist" isn't an axiom as you can't presuppose the (non-) existence of God. If I were to say, for example, "God exists because I assume He does", you'd jump all over that argument (And rightfully so), because it's circular. "God does (Not) exist" is the conclusion. In order to derive that conclusion, you use a set of premises. Granted, you could assume just about any premise you want, but that doesn't mean you're argument would be a sound one.

 

 

 

Nothing that can't be proven to exist, can be used in an argument (see pink flying elephant fallacy). As far as logic goes, no supernatural elements are in existance.

 

 

 

You can try to make all the philosophical points about it you want to, but from a logic viewpoint, something that cannot be proven to exist (i.e. a blue apple) does not exist, thus cannot be used as an argument ("I believe a blue apple exists, and you cannot disprove it") without being a logical fallacy.

[Sly_Wizard]

I don't get it. Are you implying every american accepts that "God" gave those rights to all americans? That's not quite true, people accept those values brought to the US by the founding fathers, regardless of mentioning the "creator" or not, because they are proper values which, by logic and rationality, should belong to everyone even without a written manifest.

 

 

 

I'm feeling like a broken record here. They're accepted as true because we believe them to be true. Hell, this point is further further accentuated by the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident". I'm not trying to insult you here, but what aren't you understanding? If I took the Declaration of Independence to another country which doesn't share the same views as the United States and pointed to that phrase, chances are they'd ask me why those statements are true.

 

 

 

Nothing that can't be proven to exist, can be used in an argument (see pink flying elephant fallacy). As far as logic goes, no supernatural elements are in existance.

 

 

 

I think you meant flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorn. Just saying... >_>

 

 

 

You can try to make all the philosophical points about it you want to, but from a logic viewpoint, something that cannot be proven to exist (i.e. a blue apple) does not exist, thus cannot be used as an argument ("I believe a blue apple exists, and you cannot disprove it") without being a logical fallacy.

 

 

 

Before the 17th century, all swans were believed to be white due to the fact that no one had ever observed a non-white swan. Of course, we all know how well that turned out, don't we? In case you didn't know, said argument didn't work out well as a black swan was later discovered in Australia. You see, it's impossible to argue the absolute truth "No apples are blue" unless you're able to observe EVERY apple in existence. The best you can say is that no apple has been observed to be blue. Such is the realm of science.

 

 

 

A lack of evidence for existence =/= Evidence of non-existence.

[BlueLancer]

 

I'm not trying to insult you here, but what aren't you understanding? If I took the Declaration of Independence to another country which doesn't share the same views as the United States and pointed to that phrase, chances are they'd ask me why those statements are true.

 

 

 

Nope, I still don't understand what the constitution, or accepting what it holds as self-evident truth (basic human rights), has to do with God existing or not. Every moral human being regardless of nationality would agree their children deserve to be born equal and free.

 

 

 

You see, it's impossible to argue the absolute truth "No apples are blue" unless you're able to observe EVERY apple in existence. The best you can say is that no apple has been observed to be blue. Such is the realm of science.

 

 

 

Also, no God has been observed to exist. Sure, I can write a made up story or claim the deity of Apples showed up in human form and demonstrated to me and a crowd of 2000 a blue apple. That's up to your faith to believe or not (and I'd find it quite disturbing if you believed it)

 

 

 

Until it can be proven blue apples, light blue bananas, God, or King of toothfairies himself are in existance, they do not exist. Appealing to philosophy and the fact I did not personally inspect every apple and banana in existance is bogus science and it would not hold out in a real logic/rational debate.

 

 

 

As in the swan example, naturally I'm willing to change my mind if you can show me a physical copy/existance of any of the above. Until then, they are products of imagination/speculation.

 

 

 

That being said, I don't at all close out the possibility a God/other entity could had created the first atoms or set in motion time/particles.