Forums → WEPR → [dup]Arguments for God
| 102 | 29742 |
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
All the more evidence against the existence of said god.
If working of natural laws is evidence then you're expecting (assuming he would at all) God to exist instead of them. If that's the case then perhaps it's better that your idea of God should not exist.
I'm failing to see how knowing what does and does not get you eternally punished for sure is a bad thing. So I know if I kill I'll be tortured forever.
We approach another issue that's not commonly spoken of - the eternality of punishment is also a simplification. Those 2k years ago hearing of hell and eternal torment from a priest was sufficiently close to the state of knowing. Science not yet that developped true was what the person that seemed to know better said. For the time it was the best anti-crime scareaway there was. Now however we know more and as a result need to know more even. Priesthood is still often a little stuck in the ice age, but I did hear a little on that anyway - basically the idea of Satan as the reason for sin is made up. That can be in a way proven by that Genesis is not a historical passage.
Satan was one of Gods "angels" who did not agree to bow to humanity as to master of the world and rebelled. Add to that another revelation - hell is not eternal. Eventually even those sinners will learn why their ways were wrong and to change them, and they will be admitted to heaven.
Funny thing, draconism seems to express that more clearly and sensibly - hell and heaven will be what its inhabitants will make it - throw in a bunch of ******** together into one place and they'll well make a hell out of nothing. Do the same with people who instinctively know to work together and avoid harming each other and you're close enough to the idea of heaven.
You're forgetting a few important things. If an all knowing, all powerful, omniscient god does exist, there is no such thing as free will. All our actions would be predetermined and not able to be changed
Your logic fails you - you base on omnipotence and omniscience, but seem to forget sentience of God. Where from the assumption that everything is predetermined? Sure - God can do anything, can know anything. It means he can also not want to make use of these abilities, and not predetermine every possible thing. The whole free will is in fact still a bad joke when we look how biology affects us, but well..next best thing ;P
If working of natural laws is evidence then you're expecting (assuming he would at all) God to exist instead of them. If that's the case then perhaps it's better that your idea of God should not exist.
Existence of 'natural laws' though does not imply the existence of a designer. I'm not saying a god would be unable to exist alongside our outside of natural laws of it was all powerful...only that we as of yet have no evidence for such a thing.
We approach another issue that's not commonly spoken of
Well yes. This entire subject is where most arguments about a god lie. What it specifically wants, demands, and does. Different branches of different religions claim many different things.
The two common points are they all lack evidence, and they all believe in a god.
Where from the assumption that everything is predetermined? Sure - God can do anything, can know anything. It means he can also not want to make use of these abilities, and not predetermine every possible thing.
He could, yes. But that doesn't leave out the fact that there would -be- an inevitable result. Whether he makes himself privy to that information doesn't change that.
The whole free will is in fact still a bad joke when we look how biology affects us, but well..next best thing ;P
True.
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. The only way which we would know is if it revealed itself to us.
Now, we have people claiming that God has done such through prophets and the holy books they wrote. 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. This points towards even more reason to not believe the existence of such a being.
Perhaps the matter of keeping faith as faith has a reflection in our freedom of thought. If we knew for sure that God, hell, heaven existed - would we act the same?
This is like saying we shouldn't let people know there are security cameras in a store because otherwise they might not shoplift.
This whole argument of god wanting us to have free will is nothing more than a copout for lack of performance.
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.
There is no proof for this fancy ultimate energy. Its just a glittery argument that doesn't make much sense. There might or might not be God, but there is an ultimate energy? Isn't that the same thing? Preaching whilst asking others to close their eyes, and then bashing them for not accepting it whole?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
@Blackbeltr0
Apart from what Kasic said (what about your claim being false) you are looking at it from the wrong end. You take our current state as granted and say how amazing it is that we are here at this exact location. I say it is perfectly normal we are here, as we came to be here because of this location. No argument for god whatsoever.
Thread is locked!