• Log in or sign up for an account here: https://www.sythe.org/login

Logical proof that God exists

but believing in god, is like saying that there actaully was a unicorn in my back yard last night, chewing on a leaf from a magical forest a mile away.

you cannot disprove both of them, however both of them are unreasonable

and also, if god exists then he is black, jewish, and bi.

thanks for reading.



Btw, if you didnt know the whole last part about god being black, jewish, and bi..thats called sarcasim

If there's a god I sure hope he's not black...

Anyways, the idea of it being unreasonable is the point I've made before, but as you said you can't disprove it sooo...it continues.
 
hey shredder dont think you should pass judgement on god. Different people beleive different things.
 
Yadkef said:
hey shredder dont think you should pass judgement on god. Different people beleive different things.

Religion is irrational. Yet you seem to be arguing that it should be exalted and placed above rational inquiry. If a person seriously states that they genuinely believe in leprechauns, they are either insane, or hallucinating. Nobody will respect that belief, at all, unless they state that it's part of their religious beliefs. Then suddenly, it's all noble and sacred, and cannot be criticized rationally.

Why is religion different?
 
Must it? Why do you claim this?

Because otherwise everything would collapse. Without the dependable being to support everything else, nothing could exist.
 
reef shipping said:
Because otherwise everything would collapse. Without the dependable being to support everything else, nothing could exist.

Then upon what does this dependable being exist?
 
Occam's Razor defeats your argument. Why do you assume that there is an extra layer of existence, supporting the impermanent? Why is the current layer not self-sufficient?
 
Because without the extra "layer" supporting the un-perfect, the un-perfect "layer" would become non-existent because it cannot support itself.
 
Because without the extra "layer" supporting the un-perfect, the un-perfect "layer" would become non-existent because it cannot support itself.

You are not answering the question I asked:

"Why is the current layer not capable of suppporting itself? Because it cannot support itself."

I understand that you think that it cannot support itself, but why do you think this?
 
You are not answering the question I asked:

"Why is the current layer not capable of suppporting itself? Because it cannot support itself."

I understand that you think that it cannot support itself, but why do you think this?

Sorry.

The reason this layer cannot support itself, is because it is not perfect. things can physically end. Hence we are totally reliant on other things to sustain us.
 
reef shipping said:
The reason this layer cannot support itself, is because it is not perfect. things can physically end. Hence we are totally reliant on other things to sustain us.

I can counter that argument by just claiming that things that are not "perfect" can support themselves. Why are you right, and I wrong?
 
the real question is why doesnt he?

Im not a religious person, but how is god described in the bible?

Well, I'd guess he created man in his own image and the first man was white/hebrew or whatever. So I guess you could rationalize the irrational subject by that.
 
Well, I'd guess he created man in his own image and the first man was white/hebrew or whatever. So I guess you could rationalize the irrational subject by that.

The first man, from the assumption of the Bible, is most often agreed upon to be mediteranian.

the real question is why doesnt he?

Im not a religious person, but how is god described in the bible?

God in the Bible, is said to have created man in His own Image.

If you are talking about Jesus Christ as a person, He is thought to be middle easter looking, there has been a show on it, on the History Channel if you desire to watch it.
 
I can counter that argument by just claiming that things that are not "perfect" can support themselves. Why are you right, and I wrong?

Because if an imperfect being could support itself, It would be perfect, nothing could end it as it has everything it needs.
 
reef shipping said:
Because if an imperfect being could support itself, It would be perfect, nothing could end it as it has everything it needs.

Well, you're arguing about perfection, but I'm not sure what you specifically mean. If you could define perfection within the context of this argument, that would help.
 
Well, you're arguing about perfection, but I'm not sure what you specifically mean. If you could define perfection within the context of this argument, that would help.

perfect = Indestructible. If a being was perfect, it would not be able to be destroyed. This is because the state of being perfect would mean you are 100% best.

Another term you could use is "all powerful".
 
reef shipping said:
perfect = Indestructible. If a being was perfect, it would not be able to be destroyed. This is because the state of being perfect would mean you are 100% best.

Another term you could use is "all powerful".

All matter is indestructible.

Nothing has been observed to be all powerful.

The laws of physics have had no observed requirement to be based upon an all powerful being.
 
All matter is indestructible.

Nothing has been observed to be all powerful.

The laws of physics have had no observed requirement to be based upon an all powerful being.

Yes, all matter is indestructible, but the physical beings they represent aren't. We as humans can become non-existent. The matter that makes us up, it is perfect. Perhaps that physical matter is god?

EDIT:- Matter can also create non physical existence. take our minds for example, our thoughts stem from our brain which certainly contains physical matter however our thoughts, the don't seem to have any physical existence, they are there however. who said that other layer had to be directly physical.
 
Runescape Gamblingrunescape gambling
Back
Top