Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

[dup]Arguments for God

Thread Locked

Posted Oct 17, '12 at 6:30am

StDrake

StDrake

190 posts

I've said this before, but here's the thing. If we're going with the idea that a god created the universe, that must mean it is more powerful than natural laws. Since it would have created them, it could violate them or ignore them. Now, when we can only operate by those natural laws, it would be impossible to either prove or disprove its existence.

true, and I wrote that myself as well

By taking apart those words we -can- prove that, in those cases, God does not exist because in the books it claims to be infallible and we have found failings

Except failure is sometimes only a matter of the point of view.  How can we say what was a failure if we cannot be sure of the original intentions? Like I wrote before - every argument can be countered and vice versa

This is like saying we shouldn't let people know there are security cameras in a store because otherwise they might not shoplift.

Except we do not want anyone to have a choice of shoplift or not. Still it would be better if people didn't shoplift because of their own decisions. Using what seems to be your logic - we'd save on cameras.

Speaking of which that is in a way an argument for God..even an unexistant one - as long as we THINK he exists..it's a kind of ancient security camera.

 

Posted Oct 17, '12 at 10:29am

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

How can we say what was a failure if we cannot be sure of the original intentions? Like I wrote before - every argument can be countered and vice versa

Logical analysis. The Bible tells us that God is all loving, all powerful, and all knowing. We can clearly find instances where these contradict, as well as directly refute claims/events. Internal consistencies and the fact that the Bible is really piecemeal Hebrew writings with original works and it just doesn't come out well.

Except we do not want anyone to have a choice of shoplift or not. Still it would be better if people didn't shoplift because of their own decisions. Using what seems to be your logic - we'd save on cameras.

The thing is though, people think they aren't going to get caught. In the example, there already ARE cameras in place (which costed nothing) and are hidden. So regardless everyone is watched. Not telling people that there aren't cameras defeats the purpose of having them unless your goal is to simply punish instead of prevent&correct.

Speaking of which that is in a way an argument for God..even an unexistant one - as long as we THINK he exists..it's a kind of ancient security camera.

I agree with the general idea. 'God' was created by us as a means to explain the world and dictate our lives for the good. It was never meant to harm anyone and was simply us trying to make sense of things from what we could directly see.

This isn't what we defined as a god though.

 

Posted Oct 17, '12 at 1:34pm

DSM

DSM

795 posts

Good point, though why call it god?

The fact that something must have happen/done for the physical law to become/created, means that something defied/wasn't effected by it to begin with(since the law physic didn't exist). Since we humans would describe something divine as unnatural, will means it would make that something, that was beginning of everything divine, since it defied/wasn't effected by the physical law.

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

Science will reach a point where it wont be able to proceed in explaining. After that point the only explanation will be made from philosophy. Which means after science reached its limit, people will still seek knowledge, and that will be only acquired by philosophy.

 

Posted Oct 17, '12 at 1:56pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

The fact that something must have happen/done for the physical law to become/created,

give me proof for this fact plz.

i don't see why the physical laws must have been created by something/one.
(and still, why call it god and why all the fairy tails around it?)

Science will reach a point where it wont be able to proceed in explaining.

give me proof for this claim plz.

 

Posted Oct 17, '12 at 3:49pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

It's more a set of values, guidelines for how to live a good life.

Considering this book advocates contradictory values both good and bad it fails to be a good guide for anything. One is required to cherry pick through it and hopefully they will bolster the good parts in them self with it, rather than the bad. Though the opposite does happen far to often.

After that point the only explanation will be made from philosophy. Which means after science reached its limit, people will still seek knowledge, and that will be only acquired by philosophy.

One's independent decision making skills are unaffected by them knowing the camera is there or not. The difference is they are able to then make an informed decision by knowing. There is no freedom to be gained by not knowing.

We can just as easily replace the cameras with god.

After that point the only explanation will be made from philosophy. Which means after science reached its limit, people will still seek knowledge, and that will be only acquired by philosophy.

I'm not so sure philosophy provides answers outside the scope of science. It can do a very good job of asking questions and challenging how we thing though. However if we can do that, we can once again use the tool of science as we are then left with another question to put to the test.

 

Posted Oct 17, '12 at 4:37pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,033 posts

Knight

The fact that something must have happen/done for the physical law to become/created, means that something defied/wasn't effected by it to begin with(since the law physic didn't exist). Since we humans would describe something divine as unnatural, will means it would make that something, that was beginning of everything divine, since it defied/wasn't effected by the physical law.

Physical laws don't have to be created... they automatically result from the properties of the interacting, er, let's call them "units" in general. Now we could debate about whether it needs something unnatural to create the first units, but we cannot know if there ever was a state with no units at all, so we cannot really say that there must be something unnatural at the start. We just don't know.

 

Posted Oct 19, '12 at 12:02pm

Blackbeltr0

Blackbeltr0

736 posts

it's not 1 foot wide but some million miles wide ;)

plus that is not even what i said
i said why is the world not 1 foot further or 1 foot closer to the sun so that we would not be here?????

and this in not arguments-for-no-god it is arguments-for-god SO WHY ARE U ALL LIKE it's not 1 foot wide but some million miles wide ;)

 

Posted Oct 19, '12 at 12:42pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

i said why is the world not 1 foot further or 1 foot closer to the sun so that we would not be here?????

You were answered. It's not. It moves millions of miles closer to and further away from the sun every year.

SO WHY ARE U ALL LIKE it's not 1 foot wide but some million miles wide ;)

Because your claim that if the earth were a single foot closer to the sun or further we wouldn't be able to live here is extremely false.

 

Posted Oct 19, '12 at 1:47pm

DSM

DSM

795 posts

Physical laws don't have to be created... they automatically result from the properties of the interacting, er, let's call them "units" in general. Now we could debate about whether it needs something unnatural to create the first units, but we cannot know if there ever was a state with no units at all, so we cannot really say that there must be something unnatural at the start. We just don't know.

That exactly what I mean. There is simple something we can not know, which simple leads up to philosophy.

 

Posted Oct 19, '12 at 1:57pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

That exactly what I mean. There is simple something we can not know, which simple leads up to philosophy.

Which does not however lead to "god did it".