The Existence of God

no you're wrong there...
i've been born as a muslim and i'm proud of it
but i found the truth answers myself
if you're looking for the truth you've to serch for it
and there's alot of science facts in the Quran.

The Holy Book asserts that water is, by the will of God, the sole basis for the emergence of life: "We have made every living thing out of water." (Sura 21 The Prophets, ayat 30).

thats just one of the examples why i believe in Quran and allah

 

Why your a stubbarn little bastard, aren't you.
But, on the subject of Gods existance, my answer would be:

YeNo. In other words, no idea what so ever.

I beleive he does in a way. I mean, at first I thought he created the world, then there was the 'Bing Bang Theory'. I also thought he created men and women then came 'Darwins Theory' that we evolved from apes, which now I think is a bit more logical.

 

Then pray, if it brings you any comfort.

Personally, What i believe to be God brings me hope, that's a statement and fact. What others believe of my God doesn't influence me in the slightest, since they haven't experienced the feeling i get. Sure, i'm not against the fact that God might not exist, and what i feel might just be a personal placebo effect, but i haven't gone wrong in believing in God, and it hasn't done me any harm.

 

I believe he was being sarcastic, or do I not need to state that?

Personally I worship the psychic pink ravens in their magical home shaped like a teapot orbitting Saturn, who created the universe in all of their glory.

 

So rather than use logic, you see it fit to argue with sarcasm, when we are arguing about such a volatile subject as God.

See, but i don't care if you believe in psychic pink ravens in their magical home shaped like a teapot orbitting Saturn, who created the universe in all of their glory. That's your choice, and if you truly do worship them, you must have a reason for worshipping them.

 

Some of us do not care that other people believe what they believe either. It's the fact that the majority of Christians/Catholics/Muslims/etc find it necessary to tell us we're going to hell if we don't conform.

Also, their supposed beliefs (pink ravens, etc) have just as much basis in fact as your beliefs. So if you are going to tell them not to criticize you, then do not criticize them.

 

See: Russel's teapot. That is the basis for my argument, and while being sarcastic, it is still valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel's_Teapot

 

Hmm. I would have to say I am agnostic. I honestly don't know. It would be reassuring to think of someone always looking out for you, but it's unrealistic. I like to think that there is a God, but not the God you hear about in church. I believe in a God that if you live your life well and honestly, in your time of need, he will give you a hand.

 

Have you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins? Sounds like you have, but if not I REALLY recommend you read it!

 

As a follow up to my recent post, I will no longer post lengthy responses to requests. I have no degree in religious studies nor do I plan to get one as of now. I simply do a lot of reading on the topic (I buy books; copying from online sources as some may have suggested [FreedomFight{ironic name}] is simply false. I used that particular excerpt as a foundation of my argument and anyone with a brain of their own could have seen that). However, if people are going to cry wolf when an argument is presented that they are unable to respond to, then I do not care to post further detailed arguments. And unless any of you on this thread are religious studies phd's, then I highly doubt that the arguments both for and against the existence of a God are genuinely yours. Paraphrasing is a form of copyright if you want to get detailed, so unless you (FreedomFight) can prove you have, by your own studies and thinking, manufactured your arguments, then I would cut the bull shit and admit hypocrisy.

Now to respond quickly to the demands for evidence. I will be making a post directly responding to that call in time, however, I am a politician in my spare time and very busy so I'm sure you all can understand. However, I was reading through some interesting studies the other day and I found this: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf . And for those of you (like FreedomFight) who are unable to read and process information on their own and instead use a talking points sort of article...there is a summary of the study here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html .

The study was done by doctors interested in seeing if prayer really affected patients positively. This is a double blind study for those familiar with the term. And yes, the studies results favored the existence of a God (more than likely the Christian God).

Now of course, when presented with evidence such as this, I expect to see this study dismissed for some reason of another. Keep in mind fellow God believers, atheists are not here with an open mind to debate the existence of a God, they are here to lecture and degrade us. However, maybe someone will prove me wrong. Do you atheists have an open mind as you claim? We will find out soon enough I suppose....

-Slopdog

 

Slopdog, be glad I did not perm ban you for plagiarism.

Plus, I know for a fact that there have been studies done on patients that showed that prayer had no effect on people what so ever. I will not waste time trying to find them, but I know that they are out there. I do have a question for you. Why won't God heal amputees?

 

This Was Reported As Spam So Had To Change

 

Spare me the ad Baculum attacks if you would. I gave ample explanation as to why that is not plagiarism. First, I did not claim it as my own. Second, look up Free Use Act my friend. Rather than waste your time worrying about the source of the argument, how about refuting it? The fallacies which atheists commit in this thread is starting to really annoy me...

You find me the study, not an article on the essay because articles have biased agendas. I want the actual study, this should be in the form of pdf or something like that with charts and beautiful things like that. If you can't supply me with that, then let me ask you this. Are you here to find out if God exists as the title implies? Or are you here to deny his existence no matter what evidence you are confronted with? It seems to be the later.

Now, why won't God heal amputees...there is historical evidence in fact that he did. In fact, it is written in a historically verified book of the New Testament. I believe you will find that in the book of Luke when Jesus heals a chopped off ear of a soldier or something like that....Google it and you will find it I'm sure. And again, here there has never been an experiment that verifies this statement. This is simply a theory that if you took an amputee and had millions pray for him/her, then the body part would not regrow. Since it has never been tried, it cannot be verified. Therefore, make this fallacy number 2 for your post. Argumentum ad Ignoratiam.

 

Perfect harmony would be all types of people that believe what they will, but do not try to spread it to others, unless others ask for their guidance. Otherwise, people who blind themselves into believing they are helping others by forcefully converting them, will always create stereotypes for those who just want to believe without being disturbed.

 

Reported for Spam.

Give an explanation.

On-Topic: I don't like threads like this. Everyone has different opinions, and then some people start the flame wars. It's been so long since god hasn't showed 'himself' if he is so powerful, he shall appear at a transoceanic place, or yet anywhere. I don't believe there is a god. I hope I am wrong but don't think so.

 

Because we all do, right?

Before you edited your post, it was almost word for word from some book.
Go ahead and read and learn and use their arguments, but don't just copy them verbatim.

I don't need an argument against the existence of a god - it is theists asserting the positive.

Why does another study say the exact opposite?
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html
And, interestingly enough, my link is from the Harvard Med site, while yours was some crackpot religious site.

I have an open mind, unlike you fools.
There is not as much as a shred of evidence for a god, and yet you push on.
You try to find evidence to support your conclusion, while science finds conclusions from evidence.

Not an ad baculum attack -.-
He was saying you weren't following the rules, which, while debatable, is not important to this discussion.

Oh, and a site called godandscience definitely doesn't have an agenda.

Historically verified? Ha.
You said it yourself, it is a book. This does not make it true.
Also, why has god not healed an amputee since that long time ago? Certainly the number of Christians has increased.

This is a debate forum.

 

You've got me there. Question for you DropKick: Do you believe in God, or In other Religion(s)?

 

Dropkick did it for me. I KNOW they were out there, as I was informed by reliable sources.

Fallacy? What are you talking about? I asked a question. You obviously have no idea what a fallacy is.

A question is not an argument.

Now lets talk about reliability of sources. These are some things you can base how reliable a source is on.

1. Authority
2. Empirical Discovery
3. Replicablilty
4. Equivocation
5. Circularity
6. Relevance

Lets explain...

1. If people with authority on a matter say something is true, should you assume its true? If you trust them yes, if not ask for proof. If it can not be provided, then do not trust them.
2. Senses... This is what science is based on... Trust it.
3. If you can not replicate it, do not trust it.
4. If it equivocates do not trust it.
5. If it is circular, you most likely should not trust it...
6. If something is not relevant, then do not trust it...


O, and another one. Authors intent / bias. The writers of the Bible wanted to convert people, so it is biased, and thats a VERY strong reason not to trust what it says as proof for anything.

Another thing... Medical miracles... Many doctors think they happen. Again, why will God not create a miracle and heal amputees?

 

Not in the sense that most people think of. I was raised Catholic but never was really into it. Thought about it and rejected it completely around 13.
If any part of me is spiritual, this I think describes it:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

The world amazes me, and learning about how it works is interesting.

 

If you consider yourself a skeptic of Christianity or the existence of a God, then yes, you need an argument against. And in fact you do argue against the existence of God. Notably in the following quote...if your above statement were true, then this "debate" would not be taking place. If there are not two arguments, it is not a debate. For example: Most people either support a war, or do not support the war, and both present their arguments for their position. The existence of God is the same type of argument. You are arguing against the existence of God while evidence is presented. You disagree with the evidence...therefore you present an alternative argument. You are making a direct contradiction, anyone else who uses this argument should note that they have logically lost the debate at that point.

That is a press release, not a study. The press release means nothing without the paper written by the Doctors who performed the study. Again, I would like to see this paper. Also, the crackpot religious site was able to supply something the Harvard site was unable to supply. The religious site cited its source, while the Harvard did not...at this point, who is more credible. You should also note that the figures in the study I presented you were statistically significant, the study was repeated, and came out positive multiple times on multiple types of sicknesses or disorders. This study...if in fact it exists...tested prayer on one type of patient (Heart Patients-specifically bypass patients) and was done once as far as I can tell by the press release...again find me the source or the argument is invalid.

Ad hominum attacks will not be acknowledged or responded to from this point forward.

Yes it was. Take a logic class my friend, you should be able to find one at your local college or community college. Until then, quit making arguments against something you have to google to find the meaning of.

You obviously have problems reading. The study was done by an independent group (of course you wouldn't know this because you didn't read the actual study...instead you make a broad argument against the site the study was presented on...). The site has an agenda, as does Harvard, as does MSNBC, as does Fox News. Those resources are simply there to report the findings (if they agree with them).

Archeology, eyewitness accounts via ACTUAL HISTORIANS of those days, and historians today have verified the contents of the New Testament to be historically accurate. Perhaps you should add an upper level History class to your to do list as well. Tell me, where does your knowledge come from? A book in most cases. Book's do not disqualify historical verification...what an ignorant statement...And again, you continue to use the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy even though I call you out on it time and time again. Just because you have no evidence of a healed amputee does not mean it has not happened. Hell, it could be happening every day for people out in the frozen waste land of Siberia, yet because no major news outlets exist out there, we would never know.

No he didn't, and no you don't...that was easy.

Seeing as I have a degree in Political Science and minored in logic for debate purposes, yes I know what a fallacy is and I do not have to rely on wikipedia to inform me. Your question has intent (aka: a bias) there for it is an argument. See the fallacy: Complex Question, perfect example of a question being an argument.

No the authors of the Bible were trying to inform the masses of the miracles they saw performed, verifying the claim Jesus made (that he was God). As I have said before, if they had been in this to simply convert people, they would have been out of their minds. Christians were murdered for hundreds of years after Christ died due to their beliefs. Please get your facts straight. Read the Bible before making outrageous claims concerning it. Every book as intent/bias. EVERY LAST ONE. This means, every book is making an argument...trying to inform you of something...and yes this includes fiction (however with fiction, you are told in advance the information is imaginary...hence the category fiction).

Read my last post again, then this one...I think I have given that question enough justice.