We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → [dup]Arguments for God
| 102 | 11782 |
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
So considering that, I've been looking around and I can't exactly find much scientific reason as to what happened, why you would go the other way. Could something like this be the effect of a god? Do you think these miracles are controlled by something, like a god? Or is there scientific evidence for why this would happen? Just a question, not trying to be on one side or the other, just looking for an answer.
It could just be.....you know, coincidence? What about people who ended up in accidents? Would that go against your case? Seems so.
but could miracles be an argument for a god?
They could be, depending. Said 'miracle' would have to be something which was observed by different parties and preferably recorded by multiple people, as well as leaving a visible effect for it to count as good evidence. Even then, it would just be evidence of 'something' and not for any religion's god in particular, or even a god at all...
For example, if someone came back to life, without medical intervention, after they were quite clearly dead...that would pretty much defy everything we know. There would be no natural cause for someone utterly dead healing spontaneously and recovering to the point of not having a wound.
Say you have a job, and everyday at the end of your shift you leave by car, and you always take the fastest way home, a certain route that you've taken for about 6 months. One day, for whatever reason, something in your head wants you to go a different way, so you do. You go the longer route for no particular reason, and when you get back home you find out that there was an accident that occurred somewhere along the route you usually take. It would've taken place just about when you reached there, most likely injuring you.
This would be coincidence. Perhaps you went a different way because you forgot something...or received a call, or had another stop somewhere else. Even if the reason was "just because" the fact that an accident happened then doesn't mean they would have been in it, or hampered by it. Nor does it even mean anything all that special. From a probability standpoint, an accident is just as likely on average to have occurred every other time they drove past that spot the previous 6 months (not getting into different factors like weather/person/car type/traffic flow/day of the week/time of the day/ etc).
We would also have to take this into account. Was there any other time whatsoever that they deviated from the usual path? The problem with this is it is a hypothetical. We can create it to be the most unnatural, yet still logical, problem we want. Real factors aren't taken into account.
So considering that, I've been looking around and I can't exactly find much scientific reason as to what happened, why you would go the other way.
You left the reason open in your example ("for whatever reason" so I could give you a virtually infinite number of reasons why that one day they took a different path.
Could something like this be the effect of a god?
In your example, it's already extremely dubious that anything out of the ordinary really happened. Accidents happen. People divert from usual schedules every so often. Even if it could be proven that they would divert their path every time something dangerous would happen, it still wouldn't be evidence for a god. It would just be evidence of something we aren't aware of, which could be anything from esp, to fate, to karma, to unnatural luck, to a supernatural entity.
Really, the only 'miracle' I could think of that would definitely prove the existence of a specific god is if it announced itself worldwide, in a way that everyone understood, in a way that we would all hear for no explainable cause, at the same time, specifically mentioned what it was doing, why it was doing it, gave proof to everyone individually that it was a higher power and then predicted an extremely detailed next day that could not be interpreted to mean anything other than what was meant.
While that is asking an absurd amount, it would be inconsequential to an all powerful, all knowing god (which is generally what gods are) and so I see no problem.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan
I guess my point was taken in a different direction. Thank you, both nichodemus and Kasic, I see that my given scenario was most likely just a coincidental cause, and I do agree with you Kasic, for a God to be proven it would actually have to give evidence, not hide in lost hope and "I gave you free will, so search for me".
It would just be evidence of something we aren't aware of, which could be anything from esp, to fate, to karma, to unnatural luck, to a supernatural entity.
What I was asking was do you think that these things, fate, karma, unnatural luck, could be controlled by something like a god. Just totally disregard your thinking about say a christian god, what I'm talking about is something that is just there for fate, karma, not something that created you or tells you what is right and wrong.
Ok. Here's an analogy I made for this type of topic
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? 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.
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.
Think of a cell. Just one little cell, any kind, be it blood cell or brain cell. Man, with all of its intelligence and technology, can't make even a single cell without having something living to begin with. 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?
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
There are things like he Grand Canyon, that would take millions of years to form, where's the bible now? Well if there was a great flood like back in Noah's time, then it wouldn't need to take millions of years.
You might go to the scientists who say hat they know that this Rick is x million years old. But they can't confirm that because the way they date it isn't accurate past about 2,000 years old. They measure how old something is base on how much of a certain radioactive material is in it, but how much of that radioactive material is in the air varies, and they know how much is in the air because they study it through trees which have one ring (when cut down) in the middle for every year, the oldest trees are about 2,000 years old, and apparently how much of said material is in he air varies quite a bit. Enough to completely throw off anything much past 2,000 years.
It's cause and effect, cause and effect. God caused the universe. But God is the I uncaused cause.
So why would you say that the universe, or just earth, which is infinitely more complex, was a complete accident, that it just happened?
The earth, yes somewhat complex, shows many scientific signs of how it was formed. 4.6 billion years ago, the Earth and the other planets in our solar system formed from a vast cloud of dust and rocks that surrounded the young sun. For the first few hundred million years, life probably could not have originated or survived on Earth because the planet was still being bombarded by huge chunks of rock and ice left over from the formation of the solar system. The collisions generated enough heat to vaporize the available water and prevent seas from forming.
We can see this through patterns in the oceans, showing collisions of other rocks and meteorites. We've observed the collapses of other stars and solar systems, showing what they create afterwards. There is scientific evidence for why the earth was created, even more so about how mountains, oceans, canyons, and rivers were formed.
In terms of the Judaic/Christian God..having definitive proof for that God would go against the religion.
The whole premise of that God and the religion is to have faith that the God exists. To have proof of that God would go against the idea of having faith in it
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.
Morality is just a manifestation of what we do not want done to us. Sanctity of life? We have a stake in maintaining so because we all want tore aim alive. Don't steal. We have a stake in this as well. This sense of right and wrong comes not just because we believe in divine punishment or because some higher being mysteriously imbued in us a sense of it.
What about nihilistic philosophers then? They do not believe in morality. Does that refute God? Or Buddhism where there is no concept of a Supreme Creator, yet is a philosophy steeled in morality?
Think of a cell. Just one little cell, any kind, be it blood cell or brain cell. Man, with all of its intelligence and technology, can't make even a single cell without having something living to begin with. 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?
Scientists actually have created life in the lab already. Craig Venter programmed an entire cell's DNA with his team. God seems outmoded then.
You might go to the scientists who say hat they know that this Rick is x million years old. But they can't confirm that because the way they date it isn't accurate past about 2,000 years old. They measure how old something is base on how much of a certain radioactive material is in it, but how much of that radioactive material is in the air varies, and they know how much is in the air because they study it through trees which have one ring (when cut down) in the middle for every year, the oldest trees are about 2,000 years old, and apparently how much of said material is in he air varies quite a bit. Enough to completely throw off anything much past 2,000 years.
The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years so you might have wanted to fact check before quoting wrongly.
Given the billions of galaxies and trillions of planets, I see no reason that coincidence and chance being Sufficient reason any less believable than an invisible man.
I don't think you can infer the existence of God from the existence of the world - what logical connection is there between the two?
And why cant you? I think it makes perfectly/logical sense, since most people will claim god created the world.
This is a baseless claim. You are inserting your random preferred cause without evidence
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.
Anyone can just as easily claim that because the world exists their reason is why.
and no one is preventing them doing so.
Let's replace some nouns and have fun, shall we?
the fact that the world exist is an evidence for Adskhjlfghs's existence
the fact that the world exist is an evidence for my existence
the fact that the world exist is an evidence for no other existence
the fact that the world exist is an evidence for karma's existence
Let's replace some nouns and have fun, shall we?
the fact that the world exist is an evidence for Adskhjlfghs's existence (isn't it true?)
the fact that the world exist is an evidence for my existence (why is that claim wrong?)
the fact that the world exist is an evidence for no other existence (whats wrong with this one? sounds like a theory, I even bet you can make a topic and have a good discussion with this one)
the fact that the world exist is an evidence for karma's existence (and again, whats wrong with this one? as I said in the other one, you can make a good topic/discussion with this claim)
no evidence will occur.
then why believe in it?
their will also be no evidence for care bears living in the clouds.
but do you not believe they are there? i sure do.
then why believe in it?
because there no evidence of disproving god either, so why not believe in god?
their will also be no evidence for care bears living in the clouds.
but do you not believe they are there? i sure do.
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.
because there no evidence of disproving god either, so why not believe in god?
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.
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.
danm submit, it's to close on my new laptop =/
i was going to add:
the people that believe in god, say that the evidence is in the bible.
so we are disproving the bible.
and you can't say we are doing a bad job whit that, right?
What I was asking was do you think that these things, fate, karma, unnatural luck, could be controlled by something like a god
Anything would be possible with an all powerful supernatural figure.
@ImTheMostManlyMan, what you gave was a list of fallacies for your reasons. Arguments from incredulity and the watchmaker fallacy.
To have proof of that God would go against the idea of having faith in it
Doesn't that just seem...pointless?
And why cant you? I think it makes perfectly/logical sense, since most people will claim god created the world.
Mass belief /= logical. The very idea of a figure which violates all natural things...is pretty much the definition of illogical.
When people are speaking of something like god, then you cant demand evidence.
Yes we can. And no one can give it. Which is a very good reason to not believe in it...
since no evidence will occur.
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?
the fact that the...
See? You just rejected or accepted my random insertions. I never gave any evidence for them.
because there no evidence of disproving god either, so why not believe in god?
There's no evidence of disproving fairys, asfha;sjfk, or whatever else I can make up. Why don't you believe in them?
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?title=Cosmological_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.
Thread is locked!