My challenge to atheists and theists.

[Bmw]

True, many events can be explained by science, but in turn, many cannot, and I am not just talking about healings. The events that science can't explain, you may just pass off as a coincidence, or perhaps nonsense. Again, that's where religion and opinion mix.

 

 

 

It's definitely natural to question God's existence like we both said, but to question his existence for your entire life, in my views, is kind of awkward. I haven't "chosen" to believe in God because of my parents or friends, or my temple. I've developed my own views, my own opinions on what to believe and what not to believe. That's the great freedom we have these days. It's not as if religion is forced upon me.

 

 

 

By the way, when you say that you can live your life without religion, I suppose you're counting Atheism as a religion? :?

[BlueLancer]

True, many events can be explained by science, but in turn, many cannot, and I am not just talking about healings. The events that science can't explain, you may just pass off as a coincidence, or perhaps nonsense. Again, that's where religion and opinion mix.

 

 

 

It's definitely natural to question God's existence like we both said, but to question his existence for your entire life, in my views, is kind of awkward. I haven't "chosen" to believe in God because of my parents or friends, or my temple. I've developed my own views, my own opinions on what to believe and what not to believe. That's the great freedom we have these days. It's not as if religion is forced upon me.

 

 

 

Once again, they are beliefs. I can't counter you on that one. Even better if you came up with your own beliefs. (Or a reason to believe :)

 

 

 

By the way, when you say that you can live your life without religion, I suppose you're counting Atheism as a religion? :?

 

 

 

I must disagree. You should research the terms deeper.

 

 

 

Atheism: The belief that no God can possibly exist

 

 

 

That's not what I imply. It's possible for one to exist, I have just as much information about the 'reality' of God/God's as you do, therefore I don't dispute your beliefs as false. But you also, can't state for sure they are the 'right' views. You can only believe so, not state so as a fact.

 

 

 

You assumed, that when I said I don't have a religion, I don't believe in a God. I find the statement fallible. Any person can be spiritual without having his name registered in some office papers with the box Christian [ x ] / Buddhist [x] / Muslim [x] crossed.

 

 

 

Religion is not the same thing as being spiritual necessarily. Many people who belong to religions (with the main example of christians) are in fact not spiritual in any sense, and they'd go to a church just once a year and only because their elders asked them to come.

[BlueLancer]

Okay. I'll explain why your argument fails, since you asked so nicely.

 

 

 

Your second point, that you can't prove that God doesn't exist, so you have to accept the possiblity that he could exist, is horribly weak.

 

 

 

P1: God can not be proven to not exist.

 

True.

 

 

 

P2: Assuming that God cannot be proven to not exist, nothing can be proven to not exist.

 

 

 

Wronger than ever. I don't know what you had in mind, but a lot of things can be proved as unexistant.

 

 

 

Let's claim dinosaurs no longer exist on our planet. It is so easy to prove this with modern technology that could even scan underground soil just to make sure. That's just one thing out of a billion things in this world. I'm very willing to prove you that for example, counter-gravity as a natural phenomenon can NOT exist in our world and it CAN be proved not to exist. It, too, like God, is a thing you can't touch, feel or hear.

 

 

 

 

C1: If nothing can be proven to not exist, any thought, idea or belief has the possiblity of existence.

 

 

 

 

True. Given that the universe could be potentially limitless, even the infamous "pink flying elephant" COULD exist. As neither you or me haven't explored the ENTIRE space, you can not say with absolute certainty that odd creatures like that could not exist somewhere, given an unlimited amount of possibilities.

 

 

 

Assume C1:

 

P4: If something exists, it has truth. (That truth being its existence, at the very least).

 

 

 

 

True. If you can hold a neutral object such as an apple in your hand, you can taste and feel it, it is the absolute truth to perceive it as existing. You cannot deny with any philosophical argument it does not exist should you hold it in your hand and see it.

 

 

 

 

 

C2: Every thought, idea, or belief has the possiblity of truth.

 

 

 

True, a possibility no matter how slight is still a slight possibility. It may gain fuel if a big number of people start accepting that possibility and spread it to other people, however this does not make the claim any more powerful. A religion with 1 billion followers is just as credible as one with 10 million.

 

 

 

Assume C2:

 

P5: I believe that a force in the universe exists that makes humans believe we are made out of atoms when we are actually made out of cheese.

 

 

 

Very possible, but it will be ridiculously easy to prove our atoms are just that, atoms, and our bodies are not made of cheese or caviar or wine.

 

 

 

P6: Because of C1, the existence of this being is possible.

 

 

 

Not true, let's look at the statement again:

 

 

 

IF nothing can be proven to not exist

 

 

 

However, in this case, it is very simple to prove that your body does not consist of cheese.

 

 

 

 

 

P7: Because of C2, there is a possible truth in my belief.

 

 

 

It is possible, but definitely not in our world. As I repeatedly stated, people could be brainwashed into thinking they are made of cheese all they wanted, but it still would not change the fact they are NOT made of cheese. It would be simply that, a *belief*. Not a fact.

 

 

 

 

 

P8: Something cannot be true and false (law of contradiction. Not (P and not-P)

 

 

 

True. While you hold an apple in your palm, it is not possible for it to NOT exist while existing. The same thing applies to God, he cannot be true and false at the same time (exist and not exist). There either is a God or there is not. It's up to somebody's beliefs if they want to absolutely believe it or accept the fact that they can only BELIEVE the God exists, not gain undisputed proof of it.

 

 

 

C3: Humans cannot be proven to be made of atoms because the possibility of them being made of cheese exists.

 

 

 

It's just ridiculous nitpicking. An apple can't be proven to contain water because there is a possibility it could contain nitroglycerine. But yes, it can. You need very simple tools to determine what it contains. In fact, not even tools. Just squeeze some of it and analyze the liquid substance if you feel the need to.

 

 

 

Technology can easily give undisputed fact that the human body naturally does not and can not consist of cheese. I'm willing to research you some of this undisputed fact.

 

 

 

Assume C3:

 

P9: What we believe as truth, cannot be truth because of the possibility that other ideas exist.

 

 

 

Excellent, very true. :) But this only applies to disputable truths, such as concepts/beliefs (which are not necessarily always supported by fact). Such a disputable truth does not include truths that can be PROVEN.

 

 

 

If I can prove the apple I hold in my hand contains water, I drink the liquid substance and I don't get the side effects of drinking nitroglycerine, it cannot be disputed that it's IMPOSSIBLE for the apple to contain nitroglycerine, no matter how hard somebody might have a different idea or belief about it. I don't care if they were teached since childhood that 'eating apples is lethal', if they can't prove it, their idea is just that, an idea. It does not create FACT.

 

 

 

Some people in Africa still believe the AIDS vaccination they are being offered would just in fact infect them. But the company that made the vaccination knows for a FACT the patients can not be infected. In this case, the believer is wrong IF the company can succesfully prove that they have given out this medication to millions of people and the risk of infection is literally 0 percent. Therefore, the believer can be disputed by facts, therefore, he is wrong. Eventually, if this person was forced to take the vaccination for preventing AIDS, he'd see nothing happened to him. Therefore, he is wrong.

 

 

 

C4: Therefore, nothing can be proven as true or false.

 

 

 

I think it's needless to repeat myself again. With proof that is intepreted by your brains (eyesight, hearing, feeling), it is VERY possible to prove a lot of things. It cannot be proven as false that earlier, you posted on this thread. No matter if all the data about it is erased, it HAPPENED.

 

 

 

This is a classical case of "Does a falling tree make a sound if nobody is around to hear it". In theory, it could be *possible* it wont make a sound but if you placed ultra-sensitive satellites thousands of miles away, it would be quite obvious a sound was made. It only depends on if anything is around to intepret it (such as human ears)

 

 

 

Assume C4:

 

 

 

You said: Therefore, if anybody can present me convincing proof otherwise, I'd be happy to debate the FACT that the only LOGICAL (not religious) 'belief' is agnosticism.

 

 

P10: I believe that the only logical belief is atheism.

 

 

 

This is not a case of apples and whatnot. You cannot disprove the existence of God, unlike the water content of an apple. Because, in the first place, you don't know as a fact that a God does not exist. I know, as a fact, that my apple does NOT contain nitroglycerine.

 

 

 

P11: Because of C4, you cannot prove me wrong.

 

 

 

Anything can be proven with empirical evidence, see above P10

 

 

 

C5: Therefore, agnosticism is not the most logical belief there is.

 

 

 

There, you asked me to prove you wrong and I did.

 

 

 

I'd like to think quite the opposite. You, despite the efforts, did not give me convincing PROOF that God doesn't exist (or does for that matter).

 

 

 

See what you did by rejecting atheism based on the idea that "you can't prove God doesn't exist?" You force yourself to completely reject knowledge, logic, or truth in any form - and therefore reject your own ability to argue.

 

 

 

Atheism as a concept: A God's existence is impossible/You don't believe in a God.

 

 

 

By standard logic, something either exists or it doesn't. Do you KNOW God doesn't exist somewhere? Have you browsed even one thousandth of the universe to find out?

 

 

 

Atheism is logically just as fallible as theism. It is impossible to give SOLID proof the other way or another. There is, as of today, no conclusive evidence of God's existence, nor is there extensive evidence about the impossibility of a God's existence.

 

 

 

On the other hand, there IS extensive evidence that, for example dinosaurs do NOT exist in our world any more. It is undisputed fact, no matter how hard some person would like to believe it's true. The possibility that they might exist is NOT possible, because there is overwhelming proof to show otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a note, some people can misunderstand the point of this thread. It was not made to convert people into thinking otherwise. I'm NOT saying agnosticism is the best belief, I didn't even say I'm necessarily an agnostic myself either. I'm saying agnosticism is the only LOGICAL belief in the current state of the world where there is no extensive proof of supernatural beings but neither is there proof of a God not existing.

 

 

 

I'm not saying atheism or theism (theism= Believing in a God or Gods) are inferior beliefs to agnosticism; they are not. They are equal because they are BELIEFS. What I'm saying is that agnosticism is currently the only LOGICAL and rational belief, *not* the best or anything to that tone.

[Bmw]

 

 

 

By the way, when you say that you can live your life without religion, I suppose you're counting Atheism as a religion? :?

 

 

 

I must disagree. You should research the terms deeper.

 

 

 

Atheism: The belief that no God can possibly exist

 

 

 

That's not what I imply. It's possible for one to exist, I have just as much information about the 'reality' of God/God's as you do, therefore I don't dispute your beliefs as false. But you also, can't state for sure they are the 'right' views. You can only believe so, not state so as a fact.

 

 

 

You assumed, that when I said I don't have a religion, I don't believe in a God. I find the statement fallible. Any person can be spiritual without having his name registered in some office papers with the box Christian [ x ] / Buddhist [x] / Muslim [x] crossed.

 

 

 

Religion is not the same thing as being spiritual necessarily. Many people who belong to religions (with the main example of christians) are in fact not spiritual in any sense, and they'd go to a church just once a year and only because their elders asked them to come.

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. You said you can live a good life without belonging to a religion. I was just clarifying what you meant by that. What I was trying to say was, does "without belonging to a religion" mean one is neither theist nor atheist (thus classifying atheist as a religion)?

 

 

 

Looking back on my posts though, I still believe that there is proof of several religions. However, because there are no global lines of what is solid proof and what isn't, I suppose that in the minds of some people, agnosticism is the only way to go. However, since what I view as proof may not be what others view as proof, I suppose I would be right to believe in my religion, atheists would be right to believe in theirs, and agnostics can do the same.

[insane]

May I ask the Christians who'll post in this thread to prove the existence of God not to use quotes from the Bible, but rather plain logic, so that we can all agree on this matter? If you use biblistic quotes, only fellow Christians that value the Bible will believe you. To me, a book doesn't prove anything. Thanks!

 

 

 

The universe exists. Therefore a creator exists. In my mind, this is a more logical statement than. "The Universe Exists. Therefore it always existed and was not created". It is always going to come down to what you believe can have always existed - inanimate matter or a supernatural being? In my mind, it is a closed case. A supernatural being makes alot more sense to me than a hunk of matter.

 

 

 

There's no logic to prove God's existence or disprove God's existence. All science can do is try and come up with a method of creation that does not require a God. But just because something is not required does not mean it cannot exist.

 

 

 

It is my personal belief that it is more logical to believe that God created rather than an infinite chain of cause and effect that results in a random explosion into a perfectly functioning universe, and that on this planet a bunch of atoms randomly came together to form an incredibly complex cell that didn't die (God knows how) but somehow eventually became millions of animals and the six billion humans that exist today.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the existence of this "higher intelligence" (or human intelligence) violates the law of cause and effect. If the effect (humans) is logical, intelligent, self-sustaining humans, I would argue (in a very vague and indirect way) that the cause would have to be at least as great as this, and not a bunch of random atoms.

 

 

 

If you argue that intelligence/thought is nothing but chain of electron sequences and nothing but an effect of a previous cause, then intelligence does not exist, and thus the very thought of atheism and agnosticism cannto be true. Thought has to be supernatural for any truth value to be assigned to it. I'll explain this later, if someone challenges me on it.

 

 

 

But this is an incredibly unorganized rant that I really need to think about more before I post my logical reasons for believing.

[Oy_the_Great]

May I ask the Christians who'll post in this thread to prove the existence of God not to use quotes from the Bible, but rather plain logic, so that we can all agree on this matter? If you use biblistic quotes, only fellow Christians that value the Bible will believe you. To me, a book doesn't prove anything. Thanks!

 

 

 

The universe exists. Therefore a creator exists. In my mind, this is a more logical statement than. "The Universe Exists. Therefore it always existed and was not created". It is always going to come down to what you believe can have always existed - inanimate matter or a supernatural being? In my mind, it is a closed case. A supernatural being makes alot more sense to me than a hunk of matter.

 

 

 

Thanks for the reply Insane! But to me, and many others, something we can feel, see, hear, smell and taste is a lot more realistic than something that can possible be. So I believe in your latter statement: the eternal presence of matter, rather than a God that created it.

 

I do somehow think a supreme force, unknown to us, is behind the 'missing links' of the evolution (meaning: evolution of everthing existing). It's just impossible I think that it started somewhere without a trigger. That trigger is my definition of God, something that has no reason that it exists. Perhaps a spark that created a series of chemical and physical reactions, or reactions we can't describe yet, resulting in our universe.

 

 

 

There's no logic to prove God's existence or disprove God's existence. All science can do is try and come up with a method of creation that does not require a God. But just because something is not required does not mean it cannot exist.

 

 

 

It is my personal belief that it is more logical to believe that God created rather than an infinite chain of cause and effect that results in a random explosion into a perfectly functioning universe, and that on this planet a bunch of atoms randomly came together to form an incredibly complex cell that didn't die (God knows how) but somehow eventually became millions of animals and the six billion humans that exist today.

 

 

 

Well, I do believe in coincidence. If you know that there are almost infinite stars all with their own planets, there are a small percentage of planets that most likely evolved into planets with the ideal conditions of life, or at least with what we consider ideal, then I do think evolution always finds its ways.

 

I'm also 100% sure (well, not 100%, nothing's absolutely sure) that there are in fact thousands and thousands of planets in our galaxy with creatures very much like ourselves. The thing is; we'll never meet them. The planet closest to our own Sun is several (hundreds of) lightyears away. And odds that the planets there are suitable for life are very small. But since there are trillions of stars, I also believe in thousands of other planets like ours.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the existence of this "higher intelligence" (or human intelligence) violates the law of cause and effect. If the effect (humans) is logical, intelligent, self-sustaining humans, I would argue (in a very vague and indirect way) that the cause would have to be at least as great as this, and not a bunch of random atoms.

 

 

 

If you argue that intelligence/thought is nothing but chain of electron sequences and nothing but an effect of a previous cause, then intelligence does not exist, and thus the very thought of atheism and agnosticism cannto be true. Thought has to be supernatural for any truth value to be assigned to it. I'll explain this later, if someone challenges me on it.

 

 

 

But this is an incredibly unorganized rant that I really need to think about more before I post my logical reasons for believing.

 

 

 

Why can't a sequence of reactions be intelligence? Because that's exately what it is. If you can't believe that, you can toss away every form of psychological, sociological and medical research. Because medication that works on the brain, and not only those meds, but also many others that stimulate the brain to create certain protective elements in our body, works by activating or stimulating these reactions. They of course, and it's a bit lame of me to say so, do not stimulate God to help us. Nor do they tell the mind to change. Our minds are just billions of living cells, but I consider cells to be life, no matter what you may say. Perhaps I even consider everything subjected to changes from the environment to be life. H2O molecules for example, are the primal form of life IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

edit: hahaha, I just realise this is one of those posts no one is ever going to read, except for you Insane, sine it's a reply of your visions. The only people apart from you that'll read it will only do so because they read what I now said :

[insane]

But to me, and many others, something we can feel, see, hear, smell and taste is a lot more realistic than something that can possible be. So I believe in your latter statement: the eternal presence of matter, rather than a God that created it.

 

 

 

I'm not denying the existence of matter (because I can see, smell, taste, etc). I'm denying the eternal existence of matter; for the exact same reason you deny the existence of God - you cannot feel, taste, touch, or observe matter in an eternal sense - you have no information to suggest that matter has existed for eternity, because an eternity is simply impossible to measure. Hence the "impossible to prove" aspect of God vs. Eternal matter.

 

 

 

It's just impossible I think that it started somewhere without a trigger. That trigger is my definition of God

 

And my God is the definition of that trigger :P and so much more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I do believe in coincidence. If you know that there are almost infinite stars all with their own planets, there are a small percentage of planets that most likely evolved into planets with the ideal conditions of life, or at least with what we consider ideal, then I do think evolution always finds its ways.

 

 

 

Yes, but this is all rather irrelevant to me if you consider my starting belief - that matter is not eternal. If you want to disprove God to me personally, you need to attack the root of my argument - not something that stems later on.

 

 

 

Ironically, you cannot attack the root of my argument, since it is a basic belief. Nor can I attack the root of your argument, since that is a basic belief as well. Hence, it is impossible to argue :P

 

 

 

Why can't a sequence of reactions be intelligence? Because that's exately what it is.

 

 

 

Because that is too broad of a category. When I say intelligence, I mean something that we can assign truth values to. If you classify a thought process the same way that we classify a tree growing, then a thought process can have no more truth value assigned to it than a tree growing.

 

 

 

And we all know it is ridiculous to say "that tree is true", or "that pencil is false". Thus, if you classify thought in the same group as all other material processes, then why does thought get to have truth values assigned to it, and nothing else?

[Oy_the_Great]

stuff+ Hence, it is impossible to argue :P

 

 

 

Yeah, you paraphrased it well, you believe in God, I don't. And out of that logic, our interpretations erupt. So we can't really argue about that, and I respect your opinion :)

 

 

 

Why can't a sequence of reactions be intelligence? Because that's exately what it is.

 

 

 

Because that is too broad of a category. When I say intelligence, I mean something that we can assign truth values to. If you classify a thought process the same way that we classify a tree growing, then a thought process can have no more truth value assigned to it than a tree growing.

 

 

 

And we all know it is ridiculous to say "that tree is true", or "that pencil is false". Thus, if you classify thought in the same group as all other material processes, then why does thought get to have truth values assigned to it, and nothing else?

 

 

 

Well, this is not really what I meant, you claim all chemical processes are identical whereas I think every kind of chemical process is unique. My stomach can't think, yet it is working due to input signals from my brain, so chemicals. That doesn't mean the process of digestion is the same as the process of thoughts. Nor is thinking the same as growing.

 

BUT: the roots are the same; they're both chemical processes. You could compare it to a man running and an animal sleeping. Two activities from living creatures, but very different.

[pianofrieak2]

 

I think in everyone's life, there's a point where one questions God's existence, agnosticism as you call it. I think one would be incredibly confused living their lives continuously searching for proof, or lackthereof, of God's existence. You just have to understand the concepts of religion as a whole, and your ideologies and views on the world should guide you to follow a religion, or follow none.

 

 

 

I don't know how clear that was, hopefully you understood it. In short, living life in the grey area just isn't living life. :?

 

 

 

Being agnostic doesn't mean searching for proof, or lackthereof, of God's existence. It means accepting that you can't.

 

 

 

Ah, but to come to the conclusion of agnosticism, you must have to have LOOKED for proof and come to the conclusion that you can't know. But if you have no proof to believe in something, why would you not be atheistic? And if there's a supernatural force out there that you don't know what it is, why would you not be a Hindu? You may not believe in all of Hinduism's teachings, but at least your beliefs are fairly similar. If not that, at least be New Age.

 

 

 

But if you have proof for God (or at least for your conclusions), then why would you not find out what it is? :? (i.e. WHICH god you think it is).

[pianofrieak2]

stuff+ Hence, it is impossible to argue :P

 

 

 

Yeah, you paraphrased it well, you believe in God, I don't. And out of that logic, our interpretations erupt. So we can't really argue about that, and I respect your opinion :)

 

 

 

Why can't a sequence of reactions be intelligence? Because that's exately what it is.

 

 

 

Because that is too broad of a category. When I say intelligence, I mean something that we can assign truth values to. If you classify a thought process the same way that we classify a tree growing, then a thought process can have no more truth value assigned to it than a tree growing.

 

 

 

And we all know it is ridiculous to say "that tree is true", or "that pencil is false". Thus, if you classify thought in the same group as all other material processes, then why does thought get to have truth values assigned to it, and nothing else?

 

 

 

Well, this is not really what I meant, you claim all chemical processes are identical whereas I think every kind of chemical process is unique. My stomach can't think, yet it is working due to input signals from my brain, so chemicals. That doesn't mean the process of digestion is the same as the process of thoughts. Nor is thinking the same as growing.

 

BUT: the roots are the same; they're both chemical processes. You could compare it to a man running and an animal sleeping. Two activities from living creatures, but very different.

 

 

 

What I think he's saying, Oy, is that you can't decide to trust your thoughts unless you have some reason for knowing they are trustworthy (i.e. they stem from a logical being made in the image of a logical God).

 

 

 

Does that help? Maybe that's not even his point lol...just my view on it.

[Oy_the_Great]

Well, this thread is all about proving God is logic. You assume he is, but none of the posters like me think like you on that matter. There's nothing more illogic to me than the existence of a God that created the world according to the Bible stories.

 

I trust my thoughts, because according to me the knowledge I received through education and life experience is trustworthy. I can't accept the fact that both science and the God you believe in can live together. Because they can't, there's no way it's scientifically possible that for example no solid proof of remainders of the tower of Babel has been found. Or proof that the world is only a few thousand years old, when God created it.

 

There is proof, however, that the world is 3 billion (or something, perhaps 4) years old and is a remnant piece of the Sun.

 

Also, history has proven that religion, and Christianity in particular (I don't know a lot about the rest), has nearly always failed in explaining Earthly phenomenoms that have now been scientificly proven. There are a number of clear examples of that.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

... the existence of this "higher intelligence" (or human intelligence) violates the law of cause and effect. If the effect (humans) is logical, intelligent, self-sustaining humans, I would argue (in a very vague and indirect way) that the cause would have to be at least as great as this ...

 

 

 

Yes, but now we reach the eternal question. If God being higher than us, created us, must there not be something, by your own logic, higher than God? Who then created God? And who created God's creator?

 

 

 

If "God has always been", why then can't the universe "always have been" ?

 

 

 

 

 

To be blunt, I think it's ridiculous that you're calling something that is a beleif, logic. It is, by the definition of logic, more plausible that something we have physical, tangible evidence for is more likely than something we only have empirical evidence to back.

 

 

 

I'm completely fine with your beleifs, and completely fine with you beleiving them, but don't call it logic.

 

 

 

 

 

Humans, by nature, are irrational. You must decide for yourself if it's more important to be rational, or hold to your beleifs. Don't get me wrong. I mean this in a completely objective way. We have so many connotations associated with the words logic and rationality. It's possible that we are all wrong, that we're hard-wired to be irrational because the truth is inherently irrational when compared to what we can observe.

 

 

 

Again, you have to decide for yourself whether you should stick to your beleifs, or to go along with what everyone else thinks as correct.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

The universe exists. Therefore a creator exists. In my mind, this is a more logical statement than. "The Universe Exists. Therefore it always existed and was not created". It is always going to come down to what you believe can have always existed - inanimate matter or a supernatural being? In my mind, it is a closed case. A supernatural being makes alot more sense to me than a hunk of matter.

 

 

 

It is my personal belief that it is more logical to believe that God created rather than an infinite chain of cause and effect that results in a random explosion into a perfectly functioning universe, and that on this planet a bunch of atoms randomly came together to form an incredibly complex cell that didn't die (God knows how) but somehow eventually became millions of animals and the six billion humans that exist today.

 

 

 

You do know that there are phenomena that we can observe in our universe right now that do not have a cause. Uncertainty in time multiplied by the uncertainty in energy has to be greater then a constant; this means that things with non-zero energyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s can exist for non-zero time; one of the many phenomena that require this relationship are quantum fluctuations which donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a cause, another quantum tunnelling also doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a cause only a probability of being on one side of a potential barrier. These phenomena arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t cause --> effect, they are probabilistic in when they occur; why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the universe itself be probabilistic?

 

 

 

 

If you argue that intelligence/thought is nothing but chain of electron sequences and nothing but an effect of a previous cause, then intelligence does not exist, and thus the very thought of atheism and agnosticism cannto be true. Thought has to be supernatural for any truth value to be assigned to it. I'll explain this later, if someone challenges me on it.

 

 

 

 

So you think cognitive neuroscience is bunk and that all the studies performed in that field have nothing to do with the matter that they are studying? Thought is nothing but signals in the nervous system (and the brain by association), we can measure reactions in the brain to responses and feeling that people have. The cause --> effect chains that you talk about do exist, but since our brains are wired differently (depending on our interactions with the environment); this implies that any certain causes in some brains would have different effects in others.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Ah, but to come to the conclusion of agnosticism, you must have to have LOOKED for proof and come to the conclusion that you can't know.

 

 

 

If you haven't made an assertion, then your position is the lack of an assertion. If you don't assert your belief in a god then your position is not asserting your belief in a god (I.E. you don't know enough to make an assertion). You don't need to look for proof; agnosticism is the state of not having enough proof to make an assertion. I would consider myself agnostic, not because I say there is no proof either way, rather that I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have enough proof to tell you what way I believe in.

[dogfever]

 

 

 

Argument:

 

 

 

1. Nobody has solid proof of a supreme "God's" existance

 

(assuming there'd just be one)

 

 

 

Very true, although we also don't have solid proof of a good many other things we take as fact, free will for example.

 

 

 

2. Not a single person in the world can prove God doesn't exist.

 

 

 

Again this is true. It is impossbile to prove a negative such as this without an exhaustive search of the problem space (which is impossible in terms of God).

 

 

 

3. A human cannot be judged by his/her religion to eternal damnation by a righteous 'God' if one were to exist. This would in ANY case mean the following:

 

 

 

3b. The majority of the people in the world would be judged to damnation (Hell, or whatever any religion with this concept would call it) as no religion in the world has an absolute majority of followers.

 

 

 

3c.

 

• 
   
  [*:30dfn166]Islam is the "True religion" with 1.3 billion followers: 5.2 billion people are damnated
   
   
   
  [*:30dfn166]Judaism or any of it's subsections is the true religion: 6.484 billion people are damnated
   
   
   
  [*:30dfn166]Christianity or any of it's subsections is the true religion: 4.5 billion people are damnated
   
   
   
  [*:30dfn166]Other non-abrahamic religion is the "True religion" and assumes damnation for 'gentiles': Not specified, as this is usually not emphasized

 

 

 

 

No sale on this. If, for example, the world were about to plunge into the sun tomorrow the fact we would all be screwed wouldn't change the fact that it was going to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

Your first two points capture it all perfectly. However, for a more pragmatic view I would point you towards articles on Epistemology and particularly reductio ad absurdum, e.g. Russel's chinese teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[insane]

... the existence of this "higher intelligence" (or human intelligence) violates the law of cause and effect. If the effect (humans) is logical, intelligent, self-sustaining humans, I would argue (in a very vague and indirect way) that the cause would have to be at least as great as this ...

 

 

 

Yes, but now we reach the eternal question. If God being higher than us, created us, must there not be something, by your own logic, higher than God? Who then created God? And who created God's creator?

 

 

 

God by definition is uncaused. I already said it was just a belief of mine, just the same as matter being eternal and uncaused is a belief of yours.

 

 

 

If "God has always been", why then can't the universe "always have been"?

 

 

 

It is my personal belief that a hunk of matter that has eternally existed is less logical than a God. It is completely mind blowing to me that people would believe that something so inanimate, unintelligent, inactive and random would just "always exist". Like I said, it was a belief, and is impossible to prove either way.

 

 

 

 

 

To be blunt, I think it's ridiculous that you're calling something that is a beleif, logic. It is, by the definition of logic, more plausible that something we have physical, tangible evidence for is more likely than something we only have empirical evidence to back.

 

 

 

It is, by the definition of logic, equally plausible both ways. You have no tangible evidence that matter has always existed. All you have is evidence that matter has existed for x amount of time. An eternity is impossible to prove. Impossible. Thus it is just as illogical as my belief.

 

 

 

While we're on the subject of empirical evidence - can you give me something other than empirical evidence for the validity of the scientific method itself? Ironically, you cannot test the scientific method scientifically, making it self-refuting, in a logical sense.

 

 

 

why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the universe itself be probabilistic?

 

 

 

Because it requires time and energy that would not have existed beforehand?

[FuBai]

A while ago, I would have said I was an atheist. After studying religion and philosophy for a year, as my AS course, I have come to the conclusion that, rationaly, the only state that I can actualy be in is that of not knowing which is true. Yet, I see no need or presence of God or a supernatural force in my life, that I simply act as if there were none.

 

 

 

The problem with damnation that you mentioned is that we can only be judged by what we believed was right or wrong in our own lives. Surley it is the wrong not to do what you believe is right. This being the case, if you sincerly believe that, par example, the extermination of the Jews was the only right thing to do, then can you be danmed for it? You really and sincerly believed that it was the correct course of action, then surely you did what was the best thing that you could do accoridng to the morality by which you lived your life. Surely, therefore, all that is evil is that which you commit even though you know that it is wrong, for the pleasure of doing the thing that is wrong? It is a hard question to answer, as I instictivley feel that killing the jews would be wrong, but, according to his own beliefes, would Hitler be in a metaphorical "hevean" ?

[Greatsilverwyrm]

To be blunt, I think it's ridiculous that you're calling something that is a beleif, logic. It is, by the definition of logic, more plausible that something we have physical, tangible evidence for is more likely than something we only have empirical evidence to back.

 

 

 

It is, by the definition of logic, equally plausible both ways. You have no tangible evidence that matter has always existed. All you have is evidence that matter has existed for x amount of time. An eternity is impossible to prove. Impossible. Thus it is just as illogical as my belief.

 

 

 

So, it's more logical to take this hunk of iron and say "Yes, this exists, therefore it has always existed in some form or other." Than to say "There's an all-knowing, all-seeing being, that exists, somewhere. You can't see him, but he created this hunk of iron, simply by saying a word. You must take it on faith that he exists. That's what he wants, as opposed to showing us himself in some obvious way."

 

 

 

Yes. That makes absolutely perfect logical sense.

 

 

 

 

 

As I said, don't confuse beleif and logic. Your beleif is intrinsically illogical, that is why it's a beleif.

[insane]

To be blunt, I think it's ridiculous that you're calling something that is a beleif, logic. It is, by the definition of logic, more plausible that something we have physical, tangible evidence for is more likely than something we only have empirical evidence to back.

 

 

 

It is, by the definition of logic, equally plausible both ways. You have no tangible evidence that matter has always existed. All you have is evidence that matter has existed for x amount of time. An eternity is impossible to prove. Impossible. Thus it is just as illogical as my belief.

 

 

 

So, it's more logical to take this hunk of iron and say "Yes, this exists, therefore it has always existed in some form or other." Than to say "There's an all-knowing, all-seeing being, that exists, somewhere. You can't see him, but he created this hunk of iron, simply by saying a word. You must take it on faith that he exists. That's what he wants, as opposed to showing us himself in some obvious way."

 

 

 

Yes. That makes absolutely perfect logical sense.

 

 

 

 

 

As I said, don't confuse beleif and logic. Your beleif is intrinsically illogical, that is why it's a beleif.

 

 

 

You dodged my argument - prove an eternity please.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

To be blunt, I think it's ridiculous that you're calling something that is a beleif, logic. It is, by the definition of logic, more plausible that something we have physical, tangible evidence for is more likely than something we only have empirical evidence to back.

 

 

 

It is, by the definition of logic, equally plausible both ways. You have no tangible evidence that matter has always existed. All you have is evidence that matter has existed for x amount of time. An eternity is impossible to prove. Impossible. Thus it is just as illogical as my belief.

 

 

 

So, it's more logical to take this hunk of iron and say "Yes, this exists, therefore it has always existed in some form or other." Than to say "There's an all-knowing, all-seeing being, that exists, somewhere. You can't see him, but he created this hunk of iron, simply by saying a word. You must take it on faith that he exists. That's what he wants, as opposed to showing us himself in some obvious way."

 

 

 

Yes. That makes absolutely perfect logical sense.

 

 

 

 

 

As I said, don't confuse beleif and logic. Your beleif is intrinsically illogical, that is why it's a beleif.

 

 

 

You dodged my argument - prove an eternity please.

 

 

 

My argument was implied I thought. It is more logical to say something we know exists has always existed than to say something we don't know exists has always existed, and created the things we know exist.

 

We can assume that the hunk of matter has always existed because we as of yet have found no possible way to create matter or energy, simply ways to change it's form.

[Adamfostas]

Can only have one post as must dash from the comp now, but couldn't resist this thread.

 

 

 

A couple of points:

 

 

 

First, to all the people using expressions like 'more logical' and 'less logical'. Claiming a statement is 'logical' means that the statement can be deduced a priori. This is bivalent: it either can be true or not. There's no sliding scale of logic. The word you're looking for is 'likely'.

 

 

 

With regard to the 'eternal matter' claim: while I don't have time to rehearse the entire argument here, if you can read the Transcendental Aesthetic in Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Despite the wacky title, it's a very solid logical defence of the existence of matter. The postulation of an additional entity on top of that matter is unnecessary, and thus less likely. Note I did not say 'less logical'.

[FuBai]

Can only have one post as must dash from the comp now, but couldn't resist this thread.

 

 

 

A couple of points:

 

 

 

First, to all the people using expressions like 'more logical' and 'less logical'. Claiming a statement is 'logical' means that the statement can be deduced a priori. This is bivalent: it either can be true or not. There's no sliding scale of logic. The word you're looking for is 'likely'.

 

 

 

With regard to the 'eternal matter' claim: while I don't have time to rehearse the entire argument here, if you can read the Transcendental Aesthetic in Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Despite the wacky title, it's a very solid logical defence of the existence of matter. The postulation of an additional entity on top of that matter is unnecessary, and thus less likely. Note I did not say 'less logical'.

 

 

 

His deontology puts a dent in his philosophical credibitly for me.

[insane]

My argument was implied I thought. It is more logical to say something we know exists has always existed than to say something we don't know exists has always existed, and created the things we know exist.

 

 

 

And it doesn't make more sense from my point of view, as I already explained.

 

 

 

It is my personal belief that a hunk of matter that has eternally existed is less logical than a God. It is completely mind blowing to me that people would believe that something so inanimate, unintelligent, inactive and random would just "always exist". Like I said, it was a belief, and is impossible to prove either way.

 

 

 

You can say it is less likely that a God we don't know exists created this, but to me, it is obvious. I cannot comprehend inanimate, unintelligent matter always existing and causing all of this. In fact, the more I think about it, the more ludicrous in my mind it becomes. And I don't think I'm an idiot :P.

[Adamfostas]

His deontology puts a dent in his philosophical credibitly for me.

 

That's a fair enough charge, his ethics are really quite mad, even if they have a certain rational beauty to them. However, do not judge the man's metaphysics by his ethics. He applies exactly the same level of cold reason (Hence, Critique of Pure Reason) to it, with very effective results. Mind you, he is an awful writer. His prose is like wading through treacle.

 

 

 

You can say it is less likely that a God we don't know exists created this, but to me, it is obvious. I cannot comprehend inanimate, unintelligent matter always existing and causing all of this. In fact, the more I think about it, the more ludicrous in my mind it becomes. And I don't think I'm an idiot Razz.

 

 

 

Arguments based on 'obviousness' and 'ability to comprehend' are not, I'm sorry to say, logical. This has no bearing on your candidacy for idiothood or not, it's simply that they do not provide an adequate case against the argument of the OP: that there is no rational way of determining the truth value of 'God exists'.

[insane]

You can say it is less likely that a God we don't know exists created this, but to me, it is obvious. I cannot comprehend inanimate, unintelligent matter always existing and causing all of this. In fact, the more I think about it, the more ludicrous in my mind it becomes. And I don't think I'm an idiot Razz.

 

 

 

Arguments based on 'obviousness' and 'ability to comprehend' are not, I'm sorry to say, logical. This has no bearing on your candidacy for idiothood or not, it's simply that they do not provide an adequate case against the argument of the OP: that there is no rational way of determining the truth value of 'God exists'.

 

 

 

That's why I stated it was my personal belief, and not an objective answer.

 

 

 

If you want what I think is a logical reason for my belief in God, it is found here.

 

 

 

It is a simple syllogism with very few objections.