The Existence of God

Shredderbeam is 19.

Something For All IS the debate section (why do you think we have a ton of rules enforcing this >_>)

Why reinvent the wheel? I think you misinterpreted it. He intended to portray that it is a waste of time to repeat something that has already been done, not that it's a waste of time to improve something (which it isn't).

 

First, circular logic is logic that presupposes that which it seeks to prove.

Second, science is not a thing in and of itself, it is a method of inquiring as to the nature of reality.

There are certain probabilities that it is hard to assign a numeric value to. For example, we don't know the specific probability that the sun will not rise tomorrow, but we can be fairly certain that it is exceedingly small. It is the same with God - we cannot assign a specific number, but we can determine in which general direction it is.

This is even simpler, actually - in asking "Does God exist?", we are asking an empirical question identical to other questions such as "Do aliens exist?", "Is there a civilization on the far side of the moon?", and "Is there life in the center of the sun?". The answer is either yes or no, and if we cannot determine which, then we should treat it with skepticism, as we treat every single other question to which there is no immediate answer.

There certainly is empirical truth - if the sun is actually powered by nuclear fusion, then that cannot be made untrue. If God exists, the same applies.

Are you really going to take the subjective approach? If so, please refer to Sythe's thread: http://www.sythe.org/forumdisplay.php?f=244

If you like chocolate cake, that does not imply that I like it, but rather that whatever I may think, you enjoy its taste. Even if I convince myself that you do not, and live my life as if you do not, that does not change the fact that you actually do.

We are not talking about feelings, we are talking about matters of external reality. Either the moon exists, or it doesn't. Either aliens exist, or they don't. Either God (an intelligent, powerful deity) exists, or he doesn't. A person may believe that God exists, but believing (or disbelieving) something doesn't make it so.

Humans are usually rational, yes, so why would they believe in something for which there is no evidence? One explanation, mentioned by Richard Dawkins, is that we are wired to believe whatever our parents tell us when we are young. This is a generally good rule, for our parents pass along a lot of valuable information about how to survive, what things to avoid, etc. Unfortunately, this rule has no means of distinguishing between useful information and junk - so everything is passed along.

I don't mean that trying to find out whether God exists or not is a waste of time, I mean that debating the essence of God before his existence has been established is useless.

Something For All is Sythe.org's intelligent debate section.

When is logic not the answer?

I've been on the theists side before. I've heard all the main arguments, even tried to argue a couple of them myself.

I'm 19.

 

I interpreted him accurately. I was not confused. My response was that of a different light though. I was spot on in my answer, but i cant really remember what i said b4(its so late now) And I didnt know something for was for debate.

I think you agreed with me though("which it isn't")
btw I'm 16

 

Shredder, do you believe the bible to be man made?

Also, Im gonna try another proof of God and see your take on it.

For something to be put in motion, something else must be put in motion. And that thing must be put in motion, and so on. Preexisting motions cause all motions. Without a first mover, nothing could be set in motion. So, we call the first mover God.

 

Yes, it was written by men.

Two main objections:

- If everything needs a mover, what is God's?

- Even we accept that this argument is valid, how do you know that God is the Prime Mover as opposed to some other unknown force?

 

It is widely accepted that God is the unmoved mover.

 

Even if we accept Aquinas's argument as valid, how would we know that the Prime Mover was the God of the Bible?

 

I was thinking about this today is school. There is something that must be accepted as "God." Some followers of God say what ^ quote says. The Deists were convinced that God was a great clockmaker. He set up the universe, then just let it flow. Deism revolved around the idea that God watches us and never intereferes.
The God of the Bible is an active God. He performs miracles in everydaylife.
That's why birth is sometimes called the miracle of life. There are 100000's of complications that can occur, yet just the other day a woman had 8 babies. The fact that you and I are here is a miracle. The number of complications are stacked against any newborn, but yet more babies are born alive than are born dead.
Edit: post 3501, 3500th reply

 

Why is that?

The "great clockmaker" argument is still an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Births are thought of as miracles by some because of the sense of wonder that is experienced in creating a human life.

Given the number of children born safely, we can conclude that the odds are not stacked against newborns - they're very considerably in their favor. The process of birth has been refined for quite some time - us mammals are quite good at it by now.

 

In response to

Well, there is no such thing as antimatter.
Even scientists kknow there was something unidentifiable that sparked it all.
-God-

 

I don't see what antimatter has to do with anything.

You are making an appeal to authority (that also happens to be untrue - scientists do not unanimously proclaim the existence of God) - how do we know that God rather than some unnamed force started everything?

 

Mark Whalberg is my GoD.

This post received a warning for spam.
​

 

I do because man can't be the most superior being, of course there is a God.

 

Shredder are you learning all the different fallacies? You seem to tell people them alot =p

 

Care to back up your claim with evidence?

 

wow 448 people dont believe in god =o
Kinda amazed

 

I do believe in God... Haha porman you was banned 20 mins ago...xD

 

Antimatter related because it can be evidence of spontaneous creation which supports God.

Also, I am not a strong believer of God but people need to understand that just because the evidence is not tangible, you cannot dismiss a theory/proposition/hypothesis/etc...

To believe in God, one must have faith; faith guides ones' soul.

i.e. having faith in a complete stranger to save you from something



Shredderbeam, do you believe in evolution?

 

Why can't man be the most superior being? Even if he wasn't, why would that imply the existence of a deity?

I already know them.

Why do you believe in a God?

How is antimatter evidence of spontaneous creation?

Actually, the scientific method works on the basis of "if this wild claim has no supporting evidence, and no realistic way of producing evidence any time soon, then we throw it out".

So if faith is the only way one can believe in God, then you are admitting that the belief can't be taken on its own merits?

Yes.

 

I don't believe in God, i just don't think it's possible