Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

[dup]Arguments for God

Thread Locked

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 11:36am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

There is a (maybe more than one, don't recall) crystal skull, like he ones from Indiana Jones (yes, they're real). They have no tool marks and are complex. Now with no tool marks and being that old would anyone logically come to the the conclusion that they just happened, and that t was by complete coincidence that it exists? No, it's obvious that it was made by someone somewhere. So why would you say that the universe, or just earth, which is infinitely more complex, was a complete accident, that it just happened?

By understanding how crystal formations work we can determine that they don't naturally forum into the shape of a skull. however each process of the universe does correlate with natural processes that could take place. 

And why cant you? I think it makes perfectly/logical sense, since most people will claim god created the world.

Argument from majority.

Just because most people claim it doesn't mean a thing.

Let's replace some nouns and have fun, shall we?

This is exactly what I did with with my analogy of this forum and the forum fairies. I replaces world with the forum and God with magic forum fairies. The argument being used remained intact.

You're trying to use the cosmological argument which is full of flaws.

"There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causesâ€"multiple gods, sayâ€"or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental questionâ€""Why is there something rather than nothing?"â€"remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?" -Cosmological Arguments

Further reading.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … _Arguments

Since I called it a fallacy in my first post I did a little digging.
"One case where it is difficult to decide whether the fallacy of composition is committed concerns the cosmological argument for the existence of God. This argument takes the contingency of the universe (i.e. the alleged fact that the universe might not have come into being) as implying the existence of a God who brought it into being. The simplest way to argue for the contingency of the universe is to argue from the contingency of each of its parts, as follows:

(1) Everything in the universe is contingent (i.e. could possibly have failed to exist).
Therefore:
(2) The universe as a whole is contingent (i.e. could possibly have failed to exist.

It is clear that this argument has the form of the fallacy of composition; what is less clear is whether it really is fallacious. Must something composed of contingent parts itself be contingent? Or might it be that the universe is necessarily existent even though each of its parts is not?" -Logical Fallacies: Fallacy of Composition

Now could you guys please come up with something a little better than the cosmological argument?

because there no evidence of disproving god either, so why not believe in god?

For the same reason we don't accept numerous other claims without evidence. Not accepting a claim until shown otherwise gives us a default position to work from. Otherwise we can be left accepting all sorts of wild baseless claims.

I don't believe in them, but I would never try to convince you to not believe in them.
If I don't have any evidence/facts on a matter that you believe in, then I wouldn't try to convince you not to believe in it, simple because I find it ridiculous/wrong/funny, since it wouldn't mean you find it in that way. So me trying to convince you not to believe in something I have no evidence for not to exist, would be directly rude of me.

There would be good reason if the view of Care Bears existing were being imposed on you. Such as laws you have to live under were being made based on the belief of their existence. Though this get's a bit off topic so I will just leave it at that.

Also another argument (this one I didn't come up with) is the moral argument. Rocks are not moral, they have no standard nor do bugs or trees. The things you claim created the universe are indifferent as to how to behave. And yet people have a sense of right and wrong by default.

We can observe what could be called morality in other animals as well, even bugs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M

Science dictates that you cannot creat life without life. If man with all it has can't create life, how could it have just happened?

Science makes no such claim.

If you we're take apart an old watch, like the ones that were hand made oh so long ago, and put the pieces in a box and shake it up, and continue to do so for a month straight. What are the odds that you would even get 2 pieces to fit together and say that if they stuck together within the first hour, they never came apart, what are the odds that you would even have 2 pieces of the watch put together the way they should? And how simple is a watch compared to the earth, with all of the little factors that need to be just right in order to support life

You're literally trying to use the watchmaker argument? A watch and other non living things don't have the properties that life has. I would be more appropriate to ask what are the odds of mixing bleach and ammonia producing a toxic gas is?
Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

But they can't confirm that because the way they date it isn't accurate past about 2,000 years old.

We do use other radiometric dating systems other than carbon dating which is accurate well beyond 2,000 years. These are the methods we use to find such dates among other  observations such as the visible light in the universe or even our first piece of evidence the geological layers.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 12:20pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

crystal skull, like he ones from Indiana Jones (yes, they're real). They have no tool marks

ive seen the skull (there are more, but only 1 green one that is usually used for these subjects.)

there are no tool marks because it was polished by hand.
because of the natural unregular movement of the hands. all tool marks have been polished of over the years it was polished.

today we use the same principle in many factory's. but then whit these and vibrations.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 12:53pm

wgalstin4

wgalstin4

6 posts

When people are speaking of something like god, then you cant demand evidence. What did atheist expect? some guy with a white beard coming and throwing lighting balls? God is something that cant be proven and nor disproved. So if the topic was made solely to get evidence on the subject, then it can as well be deleted, since no evidence will occur

The purpose of this thread was to see if anyone could establish a valid argument whose conclusion was that God exists, not to see if anyone had evidence for God's existence.
As far as evidence for God's existence is concerned, we may as well wait around for a big bearded guy that controls thunder and lightning as this is as good an idea as any we have about what sort of "evidence" would point to God's existence - if evidence exists, we have no idea what form it would take.

So away from talk of evidence, and back to any valid arguments if anyone can suggest any.

The crystal skull argument is more interesting as one can understand the analogy between the skull implying a maker (due to it clearly having been designed and having some order/purpose (whatever that may be, it doesn't matter)) and elements of "design" in the universe implying a maker (God). Hume rejected this sort of argument as it rests upon the false presupposition that design, order and purpose can only come from a maker/designer. We see many examples of design/order/purpose in the universe (e.g. the regular movement of the planets around the Sun) which are clearly not due to any designer or creator.
The elements of design and order we see all around us are more than likely caused/explained by a number of things other than a creator (for example, design in the human body can be explained by evolution, regularity in planetary movement can be explained by laws of physics etc. etc)

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 1:00pm

wgalstin4

wgalstin4

6 posts

The earth is the right distance away from the sun, if the moon was 50,000 miles away from the earth instead of 250,000, (as i recall) then the earth would be flooded 3 times a day, the earth has just the right thickness of the ozone layer, trees for air, all of this; and you think that it's stupid and illogical to think that it could have possibly have been made on purpose, you say it makes so much more sense that it just happened.

All these things about the position of the Earth etc. which make it a habitable planet have nothing to do with the existence of God. There are certain conditions which need to be met in order for life to be sustained, and the Earth happens to be (probably not the only) planet in the universe which has these conditions. It is because of this that we can even contemplate the idea that God put the Earth where it is, not that God put it there so we can contemplate.

No-one thinks it's stupid or illogical that it could have been made on purpose, but it is smart and logical to view the universe through a scientific mind and you'll soon see that the Earth being a life-harbouring planet is no more or less amazing or God-inferring than winning the lottery! It's all about chance (granted the chances of winning the lottery are much higher, but it's all a numbers game - at what point do the numbers get big enough and the chances small enough that we forget all about probabilities and start creating deities?)

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 1:18pm

DSM

DSM

796 posts

Mass belief /= logical. The very idea of a figure which violates all natural things...is pretty much the definition of illogical.

Not if the idea is based on that the very natural things was created by it.

Yes we can. And no one can give it. Which is a very good reason to not believe in it...

If no one can disprove it either, then there is also a reason to believe it.

And you see nothing wrong with blindly believing in something which you believe dictates every little bit of the world and say you cannot find any reason to believe it?

I say I believe in god, but I never mention what kind of god I believe, so you cant assume I believe in a god you described.

See? You just rejected or accepted my random insertions. I never gave any evidence for them. 

If I cant prove them wrong, then I just judge. I don't assume they all wrong because no evidence was delivered, since the claims was something that couldn't be disproved nor proven. 

There's no evidence of disproving fairys, asfha;sjfk, or whatever else I can make up. Why don't you believe in them?

I don't want to believe in them, but if somebody else believes in them, then I wouldn't try to convince them not to, since I cant disprove them. I think it would be directly rude if I tried to convince them not to believe in them.
If something cant be disproved, then they are free to believe it as much they want.

For the same reason we don't accept numerous other claims without evidence. Not accepting a claim until shown otherwise gives us a default position to work from. Otherwise we can be left accepting all sorts of wild baseless claims.

You don't need to accept them, you can just know them. This way you can be sure that knowledge don't disappear.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 1:20pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

and the Earth happens to be (probably not the only) planet in the universe which has these conditions.

the kepler satelite has found over. 50 million planets in the habital zone whitin our milky way. of wich atleast 47 sofar also meet the other conditions. (excluding earth)
the only problem is, is that the closest found sofar is about 300 light year away.
so even if we could travel light speed and went there tomorrow.
it still takes 300 year for us to arrive...

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 1:31pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,032 posts

Knight

If no one can disprove it either, then there is also a reason to believe it.

No. It just means there is no reason not to, which isn't quite the same. But most deities can be actually disproven using the lore and myths the religion is based on. Only deities which aren't precisely defined cannot be disproven.

Answer me this question: when you look around and see this world, and ponder about how it came to be, why does it have to be an unnatural cause? There's no reason to think it had to be a deity, so why do you think so?

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 1:53pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

I say I believe in god, but I never mention what kind of god I believe, so you cant assume I believe in a god you described.

discribe your god plz.

If I cant prove them wrong, then I just judge.

on what do you make your judgement?
(there is nothing more then a word to judge on)

since I cant disprove them. I think it would be directly rude if I tried to convince them not to believe in them.

would you still not try to convince him if he was threading to kill you for his believes?
or do you think: i can't disproof it so it's oke that he kills me for that idea.

(btw why didn't you reply on me. =( )

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 3:30pm

DSM

DSM

796 posts

Answer me this question: when you look around and see this world, and ponder about how it came to be, why does it have to be an unnatural cause? There's no reason to think it had to be a deity, so why do you think so?

It doesn't need to be unnatural cause. I use god to explain what is beyond observation. I am not denying facts or science.

discribe your god plz.

sorry I cant, English isn't my first language, so it gonna be very hard for me to explain the way I believe in god.

on what do you make your judgement?
(there is nothing more then a word to judge on)

Since it something that haven't evidence, you have to judge it the same way people judge what is right and what is wrong.

would you still not try to convince him if he was threading to kill you for his believes?
or do you think: i can't disproof it so it's oke that he kills me for that idea.

I ask him why he want to kill me, remember I may not be able to disprove hes god, but I may be able to disprove the reason he want to kill me. Since he will drag the situation to something explainable and disprovable. Allot of things about human and its action can be explained, so I find no reason why I shouldn't convince him. In the other hand god is something we cant prove wrong, so I don't see the reason why we should try to convince them that god doesn't exist.   

(btw why didn't you reply on me. =( )

sorry about that, I don't know why, but for some reason I cant see all the posts.

those that make the claim that god exists have to give proof for their claim. it's not up to other people to disproof it.

They don't need to. The only one who have the burden to prove/disprove something, is the one who try to convince other people. And in many cases atheist are trying convince people who believe in god, which means atheists have to disprove god.

if they can't even give proof for their claims then why should we even try to disproof it? there is nothing to disproof to begin whit.

exactly, which means there is no need for a debate or a discussion in that subject. As I said before, no evidence will occur from any side. People who believe in god, can believe in god and those who don't, don't need to. And problem solved.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 3:44pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,032 posts

Knight

It doesn't need to be unnatural cause. I use god to explain what is beyond observation. I am not denying facts or science.

I'm not saying that you're denying facts, I'm just wondering why you use a deity for that. Because let's be honest: it doesn't give any more answers. Instead of "it somehow happened", you have "god somehow did it". You still don't know how it came to be but you get a fake feeling of knowledge by being able to claim that someone did it. Why do I say fake? Because if a deity did it, there's no way to understand how it happened exactly. If it happened by natural causes, we can examine it.