Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

[dup]Arguments for God

Thread Locked

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 4:15pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,087 posts

you have to judge it the same way people judge what is right and what is wrong.

i judge right and wrong from the cause and effect it's connected whit. i can't do that from a word alone.

how do you judge "asfha;sjfk" ?

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.

so do we when we ask where in the "bible" god is proven. since most of them say the proof for god is in the bible. then we are disproving the bible. whit effect that we disproof their "proof" for a god.

The only one who have the burden to prove/disprove something, is the one who try to convince other people.

i try to help them stop believing in care bears. how can i ever disproof it if they never came up whit proof for their claim?
what about the claim can i disproof if their is no proof?
where is the logic in believing something whitout proof?

if someone tells you he believes in care bears. don't you think that is complete bollocks and that you should try to help him. to get those ideas out of his head?

exactly, which means there is no need for a debate or a discussion in that subject.

there is, the fairy tales that come whit these god thing's. are used for violents and irrational opinions.
that is the reason for lots of unneeded problems.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 4:21pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,566 posts

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.

That's the same thing. A valid argument is an argument which can be backed up. Aka, evidence. It's not a valid argument to make a groundless claim.

The crystal skull argument is more interesting

And just as invalid, considering there are no crystal skulls.

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

This is the kicker for the cosmological argument. People arguing for a god just assert that it was caused by a god. There is no backing.

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

Doesn't matter. If it exists outside of those laws, we have no way to ever find it. Claiming that because we can't find it and must have faith to believe it is there is sheer gullibility.

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

You can't prove I'm not a unicorn which transformed. Absurd, no? Simply not being able to disprove something is a foolhardy reason to believe that it exists.

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.

No, you didn't. It's a fairly universal trait however that a god (unless you're a deist) gives commands on what it does and does not want. Which dictates how you live.

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.

You did no such thing. You directly said one was false, and then tried to explain or discuss the others. If you were applying the same logic to those as you do a god, you should rightly believe -everything- you have never heard disproved. Including my random statements.

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

Fair enough, but what if they then tell you you can't do something because ajhfahsf said that it is evil? Further, what if ajhfahsf told them that they need to do certain, harmful things to themselves and their children to show their faith?

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

There's a large difference between knowing and believing. I know more about Christianity than most Christians, and I don't believe in it.

And in many cases atheist are trying convince people who believe in god, which means atheists have to disprove god

You've got this backwards. Realistically, probably 95% of every argument about a god's existence has been started because someone who believed in a god wanted those who didn't to follow and obey their god. The other 5% are a mixture of people who feel the need to go out and try to get rid of ignorance, people who just are speaking philosophically, and those who just get into a casual talk about it.

exactly, which means there is no need for a debate or a discussion in that subject.

There is though, because people who believe in gods try to enforce their god's will. A great many of the world's problems can be attributed to three things: Greed, Selfishness, and Ignorance. Religion, especially radical religion, falls into the ignorance category.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 4:22pm

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,912 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.

poor OP. no they dont have to but you totally got off this thread. the OP asked for a proof/convincing argument that god exists. people just showed how "the world exists" isnt a good argument. end of story. the point isnt whether people should ask for proof or that whether people should believe or not. your argument to god existance isnt strong enough and thats it. no point in explaining why it doesnt have to be strong enough.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 4:29pm

DSM

DSM

795 posts

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.

Now the question is, what is god? If we describe god as the creator of everything, then couldn't god be the beginning of everything? I mean that scientifically. If science develop to the point where it knows exactly what was there before there was anything at all. Something before big bang, and something before that, and something before that(and so on). And it reach to a point where there wasn't anything before that. In other words, something that started it all. Couldn't that be described as god/creation of god?

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.

What will happen, when science reach the point, where it no longer can explain something/observe it.
Another thing that is good to take in consideration is, what decide the way natural things works? I mean, why is the physical law the way it is, what decide that?

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 4:39pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,939 posts

Knight

Now the question is, what is god? If we describe god as the creator of everything, then couldn't god be the beginning of everything? I mean that scientifically. If science develop to the point where it knows exactly what was there before there was anything at all. Something before big bang, and something before that, and something before that(and so on). And it reach to a point where there wasn't anything before that. In other words, something that started it all. Couldn't that be described as god/creation of god?

Good point, though why call it god?

What will happen, when science reach the point, where it no longer can explain something/observe it.

Hopefully that'll be the point where everything is explained...

Another thing that is good to take in consideration is, what decide the way natural things works? I mean, why is the physical law the way it is, what decide that?

That implies that there is something that influences everything. It doesn't have to be, everything could just be the result of some sort of basic dipol stochastically changing poles, thus building up higher organisations etc. Then we're abck to the first point: you could call this the very divine essence of everything, but why call it divine?

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 4:49pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,566 posts

Couldn't that be described as god/creation of god?

Pretty much what Hahiha said. You're just calling something god...even though it's not what we think of with the word 'god.'

What will happen, when science reach the point, where it no longer can explain something/observe it.

If and when we reach that point, we'll see.

I sort of feel like religion and science are both a treasure hunt. Religion claims there's stacks of jewels in a far off corner of a vast, black expanse, but doesn't search for it and acts like it is there by taking out loans as if they already had the money. Science comes in and goes out to look, illuminating things, and as they search find no such pile of jewels. It finds other things though, and uses them, where religion says that because the story didn't include those other things, those other things can't be what we think they are. Or are the jewels...it's like a long, drawn out, removal of a splinter. The more we know, the more we know that religion was not right. The more we know that, the less faith we have in it. And what's so wrong with that? What's so wrong with admitting that we don't know something yet, and looking for those answers, instead of acting like we know and making fools of ourselves?

I'm getting off topic though...

Arguments for god...what would that even look like? An argument is an assertion of one point of view. Groundless assertions only show what one person believes, but not why they do or why anyone else should.

Looking through there seems to be a common theme. The "We don't not know" and "too complex otherwise" which are both logical fallacies. Arguing from ignorance and arguing from incredulity don't help, so please don't use those.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 4:51pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,087 posts

If science develop to the point where it knows exactly what was there before there was anything at all. Something before big bang, and something before that, and something before that(and so on). And it reach to a point where there wasn't anything before that. In other words, something that started it all. Couldn't that be described as god/creation of god?

why must there be something befor the big bang?
but on the other hand there isn't anything befor god?

maybe the univers is a cycle as my own theory describes.
but then your question will be. what was there befor the cycle, right?

it reach to a point where there wasn't anything before that. In other words, something that started it all. Couldn't that be described as god/creation of god?

even then it's no proof for god. because you can ask where this god suddenly came from. and what made him create this?

why must we implant the word "god" anyway? and not the words. "we don't know yet".

science reach the point, where it no longer can explain something/observe it.
Another thing that is good to take in consideration is, what decide the way natural things works?

that will no longer be science but philosophy.

whit that question you already implant that it was something that made it happen. a assumption that is baseless in the scientific rules.
for that to become a valid scientific question, we need to have proof that it indeed was something/someone that kickstarted everything.

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 4:51pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,971 posts

but could miracles be an argument for a god?

On Thursday, I was at college and we had about 10 minutes of break time to do whatever. I went up to a snack vending machine (the kind with the round metal loops). I took out my dollar. I was looking at a package of peanut butter cookies. I put my dollar up to the slot. The bag fell. Free cookies. Divine intervention? If so, which god(s) should I praise for this event?

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 7:27pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,087 posts

ask cookie monster ;)

 

Posted Oct 15, '12 at 8:58pm

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,226 posts

Knight

No matter if you are a Atheist or not, you would be a idiot to not except that there is a supreme creating energy referred to as God. You don't have to believe that there is an entity out there that watches you, I don't believe this myself. But to not think that there is a ultimate energy that can create life would be ignoramus.

I believe that God is not an entity that exists outside the human body, but exists inside any biological something (humans, animals, plats, etc). But this is my opinion, but over all something you cannot argue with is that there is a creative energy out there that made all life, matter, planets, people, and more. Got any other theory, I would gladly hear (even though you cannot persuade me).