ForumsWEPR[dup]Arguments for God

102 9122
wgalstin4
offline
wgalstin4
6 posts
2,345

Hi everyone,

I would like for anyone that thinks they have a convincing argument for the existence of God to post it here.

It doesn't matter if you're a believer or not, but I'd just like to see if anyone can provide an argument for the existence of God which can stand up to reasoning.

Most arguments for God's existence turn out to be circular, or can be reduced to faith alone which for me isn't enough.

I know people will say that the point in religion and God isn't to argue for His/Her/It's existence, but that the whole point is faith etc., and I acknowledge this as a valid point but one that is not relevant to this topic.

So any convincing arguments, please fire away!

  • 102 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

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.
wgalstin4
offline
wgalstin4
6 posts
2,345

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)
wgalstin4
offline
wgalstin4
6 posts
2,345

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?)
DSM
offline
DSM
1,313 posts
260

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.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

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...
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,609 posts
20,745

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?
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

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. =( )
DSM
offline
DSM
1,313 posts
260

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.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,609 posts
20,745

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.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

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.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

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.
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,360 posts
1,525

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.
DSM
offline
DSM
1,313 posts
260

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?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,609 posts
20,745

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?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

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.
Showing 31-45 of 102