The Existence of God

It does seem unlikely that God is up their watching us but I just like to believe that there is someone up their always looking after us. So I do believe in God.

 

yes there is god

 

I hear time and time again: Things are perfect, therefore there must be God. That's not exactly what your saying, but

1. Things ARE NOT perfect.
2. Perfection would not denote the existence of a God.

For example, the human eye was long cited as evidence of perfection. Biologists have shown numerous flaws however, including an optic nerve that leaves a blindspot in vision.

 

If I didn't know any better, I would say you didn't read my post thoroughly. I argued that exact statement if I am not mistaking.

I argue the rationality behind the existance of a God, not the irrationality. Don't shoot your team mates there buddy.

 

No, we aren't on the same team.

No, one can still not believe in God but acknowledge the possibility of existence. This goes by the rational means of Russel's Teapot.

This is not a complex question. There are no assumptions being made. Beliefs and reality are not necessarily exclusive.

See post above. This is absolutely fallacious.

I see this last paragraph as a fail attempt at seeking intelligence. There seems to be a misuse of "fallacy, Ignoratum, and irrational".

 

Im a muslim and i do believe in god.

 

Ok, I will humor you...only because arguing with adolescents is repetative and can drive one mad.

If we are gonna play this stupid game... Yes you are right, one can in fact believe in anything they want... the question however remains, is the belief rational and logical. While you admit there is a rational and logical possibility of God's existance, you remain locked in on your pre-existing belief, which (for lack of a better term) is silly. Oh, and the Teapot analogy is not applicable here as I am not in any way pushing the burden of proof to anyone . But in your own words, "nice fail attempt at seeking intelligence."

You seem to have a clear pattern in your arguments. You make an original point, I or someone else refutes, and you go and play with the semantics of the words you used making your original argument untouchable. I will not attempt to define your use of words as I think your intent can be clearly seen if readers analyze your statement in a previous post.

Ok? Thanks for the reasoning behind the false accusation... as long as you appear intelligent, you win right?

Again, no reasoning behind your conclusion. My above statement also applies here.

 

This isn't the humor forum.

The Teapot analogy is always applicable when speaking in terms of rationality.

I encourage you to look up "agnostic atheism" or the term "agnostic".

Yes, I do seek clarity and originality when it comes to beating a dead horse. However, establishing clear definitions is essential, especially when one's argument are being mischaracterized. My arguments are not untouchable, they are merely less radical or assertive. If you have actually looked through my posts to find this "pattern", I would assume that to be a respectable stance.

Let me be clear once more: It is NOT semantical to say that rational belief and existence must be separately analyzed. Science follows a clear route: For rational belief in anything to be established, evidence must be provided. However, if no evidence is provided, this DOES NOT DENOTE OR CONFIRM the alternate hypothesis.

Yes, actually.

First sentence is assertion, the second is reasoning.

 

That is all I needed to end this string of stupidity. You have managed to bloviate the subject in such a way that I cannot determine the grounds of your argument. So I will end it here with a couple statements. One: My original argument was in essence, it is fallacious to argue that without empirical evidence of God, we cannot assume a God exists. Two: You never made your stance clear, you attacked my remark with a statement that practically mirrored what I had said.

Also, your rebuttals made no sense at all. You not once gave the reasoning behind your conclusions.

Fyi: Appearing intelligent does not equal a win. Nice try though buddy.

 

Your lack of comprehension has no merit on the accuracy of an assertion, unfortunately.

Actually, your original argument discredited the opinions of a group that you do not speak for. Not once has a respected debater here said that a lack of evidence denotes nonexistence. Rather, a lack of evidence brings the rationality of belief into question.

Your original opinions were arranged in the following order:
1. Belief and existence are the same thing
2. The questions I presented were a complex question fallacy.
3. That reality and belief must be one and the same. (same as 1)

With that in mind, we certainly aren't arguing the same thing. Please stop saying so.

Ah, if you missed the irony - appearing stupid always equates to a loss. *predicting a very lousy comeback*

 

Can somebody else besides FreedomFight argue against theists? His circular logic and incoherent rants are annoying and a waste of time.

@freedom: We know you know everything. You're a genius! You have it all figured out! Congratulations, now please leave the thread!

lol.

 

I agree. Since you can't disprove something like a god the question you should ask is if there is a rational reason to believe in a god. I say there is not one because of the lack of proof.

I don't think so. If I ask a religious person if they believe in god, that doesn't mean god exists. And likewise my not believing in god doesn't mean god doesn't exist.

And it should be something like that. There is no evidence for a god, therefore it is irrational to believe in one. Which is basically the same as saying god doesn't exist.

If there was any arguing going on I'd jump in. They're mostly just bitching like old ladies at each other right now.

 

If you consider how massive the Universe is (just our conception of it's size at least) believing it was a big coincidence is easy.

Is this thread still a "Does God exist?" thread, or a bunch of debaters debating over rationality and evidence? :huh: Considering all the theistic arguments were shot down months ago this thread is totally off topic.

 

The thread kind of repeats itself every few weeks

 

Yeah, everything has pretty much been debated already... And nobody has really won, either. It's pretty much a pointless debate because it's going to end the same way every time.

 

look guys you experts on a runescape site arent gonna have the answer to the big question, ya know...

yall probs like 12... probs some christian moron probs hey... ya just not gonna have the answrs at all... ok

lets just conclude that there is no god, but if there was he would be an asshole and id hate him anyway and that id worship satan and listen to some SLAYYYYYERRRRRRRRRR in hell and fuck yea!!!



666 you losers



GOD FREEE YOUTHHHH WOOO

 

Why do you think that? Also, please read the stickies before posting, that kind of post is unacceptable.

 

Well, if there is a "God" then probably not what we think

Science is just information waiting to be updated. And The law of conservastion could only be true in our environment.

 

1. If Dropkick is pissed off enough you'll probably get either banned or infracted
2. Format better.
3. RS is the topic, but you're in the Off-Topic where is doesn't matter. RS is just a game. Not only to be played by 8 year olds.
4. Your post was too short and considerably like spam.
5. Your explanation on why God doesn't exist makes no sense.

 

You have a lot of mouth for someone still playing Runescape. It's a good thing you don't have any authority in these forums. There's no circular logic here. Coherency is subjective to your interpretation, so you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

This would not be consistent behind the logic of Russel's teapot. To not believe in one is one thing, but to say there's not one is making an assertion.

By making this assertion, you have taken the burden of proof.