Good "god" arguments!

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: kermalou
then how can you explain the internet to me?

if god didn't create it, then who did?

Al Gore :laugh: invented the internet don't you remember the last presidential election man?

edit: visit some churches, if don't notice a difference in some of the peoples lives that have come to believe in Jesus Christ, then you are truly not looking. There are some who fake being a Christian, and Jesus himself said that he would turn them away that he truly didn't know. I used to not beleive, but wow what a difference in my life since I allowed Jesus to forgive my sins and lead me (yes it's a noticable direction when you listen) in life.

If you don't believe me that's fine, I'm just glad I won't be in your shoes come judgement day.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: AMDJunkie

However, what you say here is absolutely correct! And per say i have no problem with religious people, if they thnik it benefits them to be religious, i'm ok with that. That's why i disagree with many atheit's decision that religion is "all bad" !

But do you have no problem with them because you imagine yourself more enlightened than them?

God is only known by people of faith from what they believe is personal experience of something that could not be anything else but a supernatural event. Whether it was a moment that "affected the soul," or perhaps a miracle, or something that "couldn't be coincidence." Since experiences of this nature usually are not put up to any real scientific method, and evidence of miracles are also poorly documented except for perhaps some Roman Catholic examples, proof of God by act of God seems to be a hard sell who requires full scientific validation before acceptance.

If you could correctly guess or stipulate the nature of God, what God is and how God works, you may be able to prove Him through that. But a Christian God would also be I dare say impossible to do that for because according to Christian faith: God is omnipotent, before God there was nothing, and God both can exist and transcend the so-called mortal plane. God by definition breaks all rules of science. Exceptions not just prove but shatter rules, and such clever linguistic arguments such as, "Can God create a weight so heavy he can't lift it," does not apply because of the limited scope of the denotation and conotation that words have cannot apply to a being whose existence does not depend on anything else's.

Though, I'm sure if you find the bones of Jesus, all faith would disappear.

On the latter part of your post i'm unsure. People would most likely deny they were his bones. Besides they won't be.

But if you say god it's impossible to prove and that he exists through logics, then your defying all terms of logics and you must refer to my signature. Because then it seems like you just want to keep god as a source of security, and that no matter what argument i f.ex. would install would be fallable.

But if people based on their own experience believe in god, they are indeed decieving themselves. Because if they clear their mind, they will have absolutely no reason to believe that a higher being is controlling them. For exampel, once i was listening to a cd on shuffle, i managed to predict 7 of the tracks before they were played. Some might see that as a miracle or something, in the weaker part of miracles that is. But it was on old cd-player, and they usually have a fairly simple algorithm, and i might jsut have gotten used to it, as i've had it for a long time. Or it might just have been "luck". Which then would have been pretty hardcore!

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Forsythe
They simply found a stage in their evolution were they had no immediate urge to evolve. I'm actually 83% Bison, now there's a fact you didn't know!

i can honestly say i had no idea that you were 83% bison!

so why did we evolve and the others didn't? we did we NEED to when they didn't? we could have just as easily kept eating bananas and swung from the trees. and how do you explain the different races? is there something in the south american water that tinted people's skin that didn't in europe?

of course, how does religion explain that? i dunno, i'm just not that smart.

This is where the logics of the average person will have no chance. As knowledge is needed, knowledge that i do not posse, or atleast, not in the quantity that is needed. Because there are loads of different possibilities as to why we evovled. Perhaps we just bt some chance spawned as an awkward offspring, that thus existed, and kep existing, creating it's own tribe. I dunno.

 

[spidey07]

Why argue against one who has no faith?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: AMDJunkie

However, what you say here is absolutely correct! And per say i have no problem with religious people, if they thnik it benefits them to be religious, i'm ok with that. That's why i disagree with many atheit's decision that religion is "all bad" !

But do you have no problem with them because you imagine yourself more enlightened than them?

God is only known by people of faith from what they believe is personal experience of something that could not be anything else but a supernatural event. Whether it was a moment that "affected the soul," or perhaps a miracle, or something that "couldn't be coincidence." Since experiences of this nature usually are not put up to any real scientific method, and evidence of miracles are also poorly documented except for perhaps some Roman Catholic examples, proof of God by act of God seems to be a hard sell who requires full scientific validation before acceptance.

If you could correctly guess or stipulate the nature of God, what God is and how God works, you may be able to prove Him through that. But a Christian God would also be I dare say impossible to do that for because according to Christian faith: God is omnipotent, before God there was nothing, and God both can exist and transcend the so-called mortal plane. God by definition breaks all rules of science. Exceptions not just prove but shatter rules, and such clever linguistic arguments such as, "Can God create a weight so heavy he can't lift it," does not apply because of the limited scope of the denotation and conotation that words have cannot apply to a being whose existence does not depend on anything else's.

Though, I'm sure if you find the bones of Jesus, all faith would disappear.

On the latter part of your post i'm unsure. People would most likely deny they were his bones. Besides they won't be.

But if you say god it's impossible to prove and that he exists through logics, then your defying all terms of logics and you must refer to my signature. Because then it seems like you just want to keep god as a source of security, and that no matter what argument i f.ex. would install would be fallable.

But if people based on their own experience believe in god, they are indeed decieving themselves. Because if they clear their mind, they will have absolutely no reason to believe that a higher being is controlling them. For exampel, once i was listening to a cd on shuffle, i managed to predict 7 of the tracks before they were played. Some might see that as a miracle or something, in the weaker part of miracles that is. But it was on old cd-player, and they usually have a fairly simple algorithm, and i might jsut have gotten used to it, as i've had it for a long time. Or it might just have been "luck". Which then would have been pretty hardcore!

It's not impossible for Jesus to have existed, in fact it's rather likely; charismatic people were needed to spread the word of religion, and he apparently had charisma to spare. On the other hand, he may be made-up Either way, it wouldn't in any way be evidence of the existence of a deity, just of a predecessor to the politicians of today.

 

[Kntx]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I am a complete atheist, nuff said about me.
Give me arguments on why i should believe. Please keep it trool free (as if ) and make it, "logical arguments."
If you're unsure what a logical argument is? then look here: Wikipedia.org

I will naturally refer from namecalling, of _any_ sorts, and urge you to do the same.
Also, wouldn't it be cool in nobody else than religious ppl posted their arguments, so it wouldn't be a total flame post?

It's a question of faith. It isn't an easy thing to explain, but you should think about the fact that being an athiest requires just as much faith as beliving in a God.

 

[Doboji]

My argument for believing in god...

1) We cannot prove that god either exists

2) Religion is only a useful excuse for murder and war.... if there were no religion there would be another excuse.

3) The thought of heaven is a nicer thought than the thought of nothingness

4) It feels better to believe we have a purpose in being alive

Therefor it is better to believe in god, than it is to not believe in god.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Kntx
It's a question of faith. It isn't an easy thing to explain, but you should think about the fact that being an athiest requires just as much faith as beliving in a God.

No, atheism is an educated guess based on all available evidence. Faith isn't an easy thing to explain because there's no evidence/reason for it. Most people have it because of both nature (it is a genetic inclination, after all, not unlike our inclination to learn a language, etc.) and nurture (most are taught it by example in their families and due to it being the societal norm still, unfortunately), though either one alone can be strong enough. The believer attributes all good luck to their deity, going so far as to say god (ie. chance) helps those who help themselves... and helping yourself is what it's all about, really - what is religion but a tool for the advancement of our species? Unfortunately it has served its purpose and is no longer needed, indeed it holds us back in many areas.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I am a complete atheist, nuff said about me.
Give me arguments on why i should believe. Please keep it trool free (as if ) and make it, "logical arguments."
If you're unsure what a logical argument is? then look here: Wikipedia.org

I will naturally refer from namecalling, of _any_ sorts, and urge you to do the same.
Also, wouldn't it be cool in nobody else than religious ppl posted their arguments, so it wouldn't be a total flame post?

Oh brother couldn't you do a search?

 

[AMDJunkie]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: AMDJunkie

However, what you say here is absolutely correct! And per say i have no problem with religious people, if they thnik it benefits them to be religious, i'm ok with that. That's why i disagree with many atheit's decision that religion is "all bad" !

But do you have no problem with them because you imagine yourself more enlightened than them?

God is only known by people of faith from what they believe is personal experience of something that could not be anything else but a supernatural event. Whether it was a moment that "affected the soul," or perhaps a miracle, or something that "couldn't be coincidence." Since experiences of this nature usually are not put up to any real scientific method, and evidence of miracles are also poorly documented except for perhaps some Roman Catholic examples, proof of God by act of God seems to be a hard sell who requires full scientific validation before acceptance.

If you could correctly guess or stipulate the nature of God, what God is and how God works, you may be able to prove Him through that. But a Christian God would also be I dare say impossible to do that for because according to Christian faith: God is omnipotent, before God there was nothing, and God both can exist and transcend the so-called mortal plane. God by definition breaks all rules of science. Exceptions not just prove but shatter rules, and such clever linguistic arguments such as, "Can God create a weight so heavy he can't lift it," does not apply because of the limited scope of the denotation and conotation that words have cannot apply to a being whose existence does not depend on anything else's.

Though, I'm sure if you find the bones of Jesus, all faith would disappear.

On the latter part of your post i'm unsure. People would most likely deny they were his bones. Besides they won't be.

But if you say god it's impossible to prove and that he exists through logics, then your defying all terms of logics and you must refer to my signature. Because then it seems like you just want to keep god as a source of security, and that no matter what argument i f.ex. would install would be fallable.

But if people based on their own experience believe in god, they are indeed decieving themselves. Because if they clear their mind, they will have absolutely no reason to believe that a higher being is controlling them. For exampel, once i was listening to a cd on shuffle, i managed to predict 7 of the tracks before they were played. Some might see that as a miracle or something, in the weaker part of miracles that is. But it was on old cd-player, and they usually have a fairly simple algorithm, and i might jsut have gotten used to it, as i've had it for a long time. Or it might just have been "luck". Which then would have been pretty hardcore!

The very last part is a theological joke. Christians believe Jesus rose into heaven body and soul. Thus, there's no physical remain of his body left. Convenient, eh? So, if one -was- to find the remains of Jesus, he then didn't rise into Heaven, and he wasn't a deity.

I neither say God is impossible to prove nor that he exists through logic. The God you talk about, the Christian God, is said to have such and such attributes. Whether such a thing exists, that's a good question. I am just taking what God is supposed to be and seeing if I can prove or disprove him logically. For example, you can say there's no such thing as a triangle with four corners. But if you're omnipotent, is there still no such thing? Which comes first, the universal definition, or that which creates the absolute? Again, I do not say God doesn't exist through logic, but rather from hypothesizing from recorded doctrinal belief the nature of what this Christian God would be like, we find that we are limited by our terms and definitions.

Also, for the same reason you have no reason to believe a higher power motivated your guesses, the believer will also say you have no reason to believe that a higher power didn't enlighten you with your random playlist ahead of time. In this particular debate, just saying a lack of evidence means a lack of existence will not work. People want full and conclusive proof of either the existence or non-existence of God before they will give up their preconceived notions. Good luck with that.

 

[bigredguy]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Darthvoy

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I am a complete atheist, nuff said about me.
Give me arguments on why i should believe. Please keep it trool free (as if ) and make it, "logical arguments."
If you're unsure what a logical argument is? then look here: Wikipedia.org

I will naturally refer from namecalling, of _any_ sorts, and urge you to do the same.
Also, wouldn't it be cool in nobody else than religious ppl posted their arguments, so it wouldn't be a total flame post?

Let me tell you of the Intelligent design argument I learned in my philosophy class. If you think about a mechanical watch, it is obvious it was designed by an intelligent mind. Every part of the watch has its purpose and they all work together to make the whole thing work. If one part is taken out off of the watch it will stop working. Now, if you look at how we are designed, you can make the similar argument. We have billions of cells in our bodies and they all have their specific purpose. If you look at how our bodies break up food and how certain enzymes break up certain types of protein, and how our organs work together to keep us alive, one can conclude that we are of intelligent design. However, this type of argument tells us nothing about out our designer. e.i. whether he is good or bad.

I don't really see your point, but i don't see why you say it's a creator (the description "Intelligent design2 is used to make the "argument" sound plausible) that created us. With even a little brain-power, you can imagine the way evolution works, apply it to the current physiological view of our body (or any body), and then it all seems to make sense...

Until you start thinking about the numbers behind the probability of things falling into place on their own.

and then you realize how long the universe has measurably been around. Don't tell me your young earth stuff either. All the stuff I've read on it has been pure BS.

The first spark of life was the hard part. After that survival loaded the dice. When you look at all the galaxies and all the starts and all the planets it's not surprising that the dice came up "life" in atleast one of the cases.

The spark of life is pretty easy. You take the simple chemicals that make up an enzyme, which BTW occur naturally everywhere on earth, add a little current (like lightning) and these chemicals form an enzyme. Leave the rest up to billions of years.

When you consider that life is found in the soft water of nuclear power plants, jet fuel or a rock from Mars, you have to ask, "why did it take us so long to evolve?" Not how did we get here so fast.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Doboji
My argument for believing in god...

1) We cannot prove that god either exists

2) Religion is only a useful excuse for murder and war.... if there were no religion there would be another excuse.

3) The thought of heaven is a nicer thought than the thought of nothingness

4) It feels better to believe we have a purpose in being alive

Therefor it is better to believe in god, than it is to not believe in god.

Your absolutely right, it is better! I just don't like lying to myselves. And i find that you are a "weaker" person if you can't accept the truth. Because, as it turns out, there is absolutely no evidence to believe in god. In fact, there's a whole lot of no evidence!

[Edit]
Besides, i'm absolutely sure that jesus existed. In fact, the time around year 0 was stuffed people running around claiming they were someone special, son of god and so on. But the fact is, finding one persons bones and identifying them, is not that easy. Hell, we might just even allready have found them

And i didn't feel like doing a search, because i wanted a discussion, which i believe we've had! With a minimum of troll's i may add!

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Look, to believe in God, you have to make some effort. And that means a little suspension of belief, a bit of logical thinking (meaning you have to realize the limits of science and logic ...) You also need a little faith. God's not gonna bend over backwards to try and convince a bunch of critics sitting back with their arms folded. He has however done his part to reach out toward humanity (the incarnation, certain revelations). And if you are patient and open minded, he will reach out to you.

Now for you people who are so insistent on scientific or logical "proof", I think you should take a step back and consider the infallibility of knowledge "we alread know for sure." If you look back in history, scientific "truths" have been disproven or revised all the time. Even our current atomic model is only a model!! Nobody has seen an atom, nobody knows for sure that it consists of a bunch of orbiting balls. The model of the atom however is true for us because so far, it has worked and nothing has contradicted it. That's an example. To get more abstract, how do we know what we know? Through our senses for one... But we only have five senses, imagine what we would know to be truth if we had ten senses.

Basically, science and truth are not as rock solid as everyone assumes. So try not to let that be a huge hangup in deciding on religion.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: bigredguy
The spark of life is pretty easy. You take the simple chemicals that make up an enzyme, which BTW occur naturally everywhere on earth, add a little current (like lightning) and these chemicals form an enzyme. Leave the rest up to billions of years.

When you consider that life is found in the soft water of nuclear power plants, jet fuel or a rock from Mars, you have to ask, "why did it take us so long to evolve?" Not how did we get here so fast.

Yep. It has even been done in a lab.

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Look, to believe in God, you have to make some effort. And that means a little suspension of belief, a bit of logical thinking (meaning you have to realize the limits of science and logic ...) You also need a little faith. God's not gonna bend over backwards to try and convince a bunch of critics sitting back with their arms folded. He has however done his part to reach out toward humanity (the incarnation, certain revelations). And if you are patient and open minded, he will reach out to you.

Now for you people who are so insistent on scientific or logical "proof", I think you should take a step back and consider the infallibility of knowledge "we alread know for sure." If you look back in history, scientific "truths" have been disproven or revised all the time. Even our current atomic model is only a model!! Nobody has seen an atom, nobody knows for sure that it consists of a bunch of orbiting balls. The model of the atom however is true for us because so far, it has worked and nothing has contradicted it. That's an example. To get more abstract, how do we know what we know? Through our senses for one... But we only have five senses, imagine what we would know to be truth if we had ten senses.

Basically, science and truth are not as rock solid as everyone assumes. So try not to let that be a huge hangup in deciding on religion.

:laugh:

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Just because there is no physical indication does not mean it does not exist.

You can not prove your mother loves you, yet you believe it to be so.

If we examine the cheical's in her brain, we'll be able to se that she does. Why is something neurobiologists will be able to tell us once!

But nobody has yet proved that she does. What you've just described is faith.

Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

(If you'd like to read the rest of the chapter, it can be found here.)


Just as you believe that if somebody could examine the chemicals in your mother's brain, you'd see proof that your mother loves you, I believe that if I die, I will see God himself. Unfortunately, dying is permanent, so I won't be able to tell you about it when I see my proof.

Basically, there's no irrefutable x => y => God argument that doesn't include faith. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Just because there is no physical indication does not mean it does not exist.

You can not prove your mother loves you, yet you believe it to be so.

If we examine the cheical's in her brain, we'll be able to se that she does. Why is something neurobiologists will be able to tell us once!

But nobody has yet proved that she does. What you've just described is faith.

Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

(If you'd like to read the rest of the chapter, it can be found here.)


Just as you believe that if somebody could examine the chemicals in your mother's brain, you'd see proof that your mother loves you, I believe that if I die, I will see God himself. Unfortunately, dying is permanent, so I won't be able to tell you about it when I see my proof.

Basically, there's no irrefutable x => y => God argument that doesn't include faith. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's not faith, it's an educated guess. There's a difference between believing something not yet proven but with supporting evidence and something without it.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

All evidence is not scientific.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
All evidence is not scientific.

??? Are you arguing against the scientific method?

And if there is no argument pro god without any faith, then there is no god. Because faith is believeing in what isn't.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Look, to believe in God, you have to make some effort. And that means a little suspension of belief, a bit of logical thinking (meaning you have to realize the limits of science and logic ...) You also need a little faith. God's not gonna bend over backwards to try and convince a bunch of critics sitting back with their arms folded. He has however done his part to reach out toward humanity (the incarnation, certain revelations). And if you are patient and open minded, he will reach out to you.

Now for you people who are so insistent on scientific or logical "proof", I think you should take a step back and consider the infallibility of knowledge "we alread know for sure." If you look back in history, scientific "truths" have been disproven or revised all the time. Even our current atomic model is only a model!! Nobody has seen an atom, nobody knows for sure that it consists of a bunch of orbiting balls. The model of the atom however is true for us because so far, it has worked and nothing has contradicted it. That's an example. To get more abstract, how do we know what we know? Through our senses for one... But we only have five senses, imagine what we would know to be truth if we had ten senses.

Basically, science and truth are not as rock solid as everyone assumes. So try not to let that be a huge hangup in deciding on religion.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Faith is more like having the willingness to accept something that you would not have accepted based on merely your own thought processes. So, if you say "faith is believing in what isn't", you are basically saying that anything you can't comprehend does not exist.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Faith is more like having the willingness to accept something that you would not have accepted based on merely your own thought processes. So, if you say "faith is believing in what isn't", you are basically saying that anything you can't comprehend does not exist.

Nope, again you've ignored all that has been said. Atheism is theory based on evidence, nothing more or less.

 

[jhu]

since moonbeam hasn't showed up yet, i'll just say that you guys are butt-heads for not agreeing with me.

 

[Chronoshock]

The whole argument that since life is so improbable, that it must have been created by a god is idiotic. There is something very simple to consider: if the chances did NOT work out, we would not exist and not be discussing it. Sure, many things had to work out but there an astronomical number of locations for it to take place. This doesn't really show that life is definitely the result of some god, but it certainly doesn't invalidate the notion of evolution like the "intelligent design" argument claims.

 

[flawlssdistortn]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Faith is more like having the willingness to accept something that you would not have accepted based on merely your own thought processes. So, if you say "faith is believing in what isn't", you are basically saying that anything you can't comprehend does not exist.

Nope, again you've ignored all that has been said. Atheism is theory based on evidence, nothing more or less.

Then there's no way for a true atheist to become a christian. You are limiting yourself by only accepting cold hard scientific evidence. Explaining to you the possibility of God is like trying to tell a blind person about color. Except i dont believe that all these critics are "true atheists"

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Just because there is no physical indication does not mean it does not exist.

You can not prove your mother loves you, yet you believe it to be so.

If we examine the cheical's in her brain, we'll be able to se that she does. Why is something neurobiologists will be able to tell us once!

But nobody has yet proved that she does. What you've just described is faith.

Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

(If you'd like to read the rest of the chapter, it can be found here.)


Just as you believe that if somebody could examine the chemicals in your mother's brain, you'd see proof that your mother loves you, I believe that if I die, I will see God himself. Unfortunately, dying is permanent, so I won't be able to tell you about it when I see my proof.

Basically, there's no irrefutable x => y => God argument that doesn't include faith. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's not faith, it's an educated guess. There's a difference between believing something not yet proven but with supporting evidence and something without it.

Yes, there's a difference, but how do you define evidence? If somebody prayed for healing and was healed, would you see that as evidence of God's existence? Some would, some wouldn't. The point is that you can see "evidence" of a lot things, but until you see proof, you ultimately have to take it on faith. Your mother's love included.