5 Main arguments of god


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 556 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

White Rider wrote:

It is really amusing to see some people who don't believe in God, obsess over him more than many who do.Death will answer any and all questions concerning the subject.

On a slightly different note, the religous of the world certainly aren't who i am looking over my shoulder for as i stroll through the hood.And the day a church gets as much influence over our society as most major corporations have, then i might grow concerned.
Belief in God is a personal thing,hardwired in most. No unbeliever will sway a believer or vice versa.Discussions like this are just piss in the wind.

It is precisely the believers, especially the fundamentalists of all stripes, who frighten me most.

The fervent believers are the ones who crash planes into buildings, firebomb women’s clinics, murder doctors, and promote corralling their fellow humans into walled ghettos (and starving them to death because of their sexual activities); and, possibly the more benign of which, rip the fish-eating t-rex off my car (leaving a note under my wiperblade telling me I’m destined for the fires of Hell).

I’m also afraid of the less fervent but still faithful majority who will blithely watch as we rationalists are burned alive for agreeing with evolution by natural selection; afraid not merely because they will not help us, but because, eventually, they will cheer and laugh as my fellow 'heretics' scream in agony.

As to nonbelievers never swaying believers: in my younger years I very much was attracted to the priesthood, but found I liked girls a bit too much. As an adult, I was not merely a faithful and adherent Catholic, but a Knight of Columbus. As I’m sure you may guess-- I was swayed quite effectively.


I am a Christian.
I am not a scholar.
I do not have all of the answers.
I might be wrong; it is possible God does not exist.
If you pose a question I cannot answer, I'll thank you for it and ask for the time to investigate it.

I'm not absolutely certain of anything except that I exist.

That's where I'm starting from. Where are you?

Whether or not these are the “main ones” or not, or 12th grade or not, these are the ones posted, so these are the ones I'll try to address. I do not claim to know any “better” arguments. But in the OP questions are posed to the arguments and I'll try to answer them. And I know BigNorseWolf is quoting someone else's post, but since BNW posted it, I refer to BNW.

OP #1 Kalam Cosmological Argument

A. Everything that exists has a cause.
B. The universe is a thing that exists.
C. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Conclusion C follows from the Law of Detachment. If one disagrees with C, then one must argue that either the universe does not exist, or that effects exist without causes.

We can start anywhere and say, “Here's an effect.”
“Well, what caused it?”
“This thing.”
“And what caused that?”
“That thing.”
And so on and so forth until we arrive at an uncaused cause that brings the universe into effect.

Assuming we agree with A, B, and C so far, three dilemmas arise:

(1) Does the universe have a beginning or no beginning?

For you, “Nothing can be eternal... except god (for some reason).” Potential infinites (continually becoming) are fine. I could start counting by ones to infinity and I would continually be coming closer, but I'd never get there. In fact, no matter how high I counted I'd still have infinity to go. But an actual infinite constantly is and there'd be no room for anything else. If the universe has no beginning, then how many days have gone by to arrive at today? An infinite number of days. Then that's an actual infinite and there should be no room for today, or yesterday, or the day before, ad infinitum. Its like trying to jump out of a bottomless pit, we can't because there's no ground from which to jump, but since we are here (today), we're out of the pit. This implies a finite number of days.

So, I'm with the Big Bang on this one: The universe had a beginning. (As for an oscillating Big Bang/Big Crunch, that's just a fancier "always existed" static view. And a multiverse works the same way).

If the universe has a beginning, this leads to the second dilemma:

(2) Was the beginning of the universe caused or did it just happen?

If the universe just happened then it came from nothing. To me, this is worse than magic. The magician at least has the hat when he pulls the rabbit from it. But something (which the universe is) cannot come from nothing. From nothingness nothing comes. And so I think that the universe was caused. This leads to the third:

(3) Was the cause of the beginning of the universe personal or was it an impersonal force?

If it was an impersonal force, then it was Star Wars' Force. The question then becomes, "Well, what caused the Impersonal Force to cause the beginning of the universe?" If we turn off the lights and just wait for them to come on again, whenever some impersonal force occurs, we'll wait in perpetuity. Someone has to get up and flip the switch for the lights to come on. Therefore, I believe in a personal cause.

This, then, is my most basic definition of God:

The uncaused cause of the beginning of the universe.

OP #2
Then what caused God? Or even what caused God to cause the universe? BigNorseWolf's was specifically, “Then what designed the designer?” These are categorical fallacies; its like asking what does red taste like. God is not an effect; therefore, He has no cause. We could ask, "WHY did God cause the universe?" But that's a whole other ball of wax.

If it turns out that there was a cause that produced the effect called God, I would say that what I thought was God wasn't God, but whatever it was that caused what I previously thought of as God, was really God (the uncaused causer).

OP #3 True Morality Comes from God

This argument does not make a case for God in and of itself. If one accepts that a God exists, then we can start to argue about whether or not morality comes from Him. If one doesn't accept that God exits, then one certainly isn't going to think that morality comes from something one doesn't believe in. Assuming, then, for the moment, that we accept that God exists:

Each of us has an internal sense of right and wrong. This is revealed whenever we bring up concepts of justice or fairness and whenever we attempt to justify our behavior. This moral code appears to transcend cultural boundaries. If I hit someone just because they are in my way, it really doesn't matter where on the planet I am, it will be seen as wrong.

If there is a moral code (as OP puts it, “respect for living thinking beings”) inherent in everyone then, perhaps, there is a moral code giver. The moral argument is not that morality is something beyond what it is, but it argues from whence it comes.

“Evolutionary biology provides a LOT of insight as to the benefits of a social species being moral.” If a moral code is just a social convention, then is murder wrong because it is illegal or is it illegal because it is wrong?

I think that it is illegal because it is wrong. An exaggeration to make my point:

If I marry a woman who has had a child by another man, why shouldn't I kill that child, just like my fellow mammal, the lion does? It'll put my wife in estrus (well, probably not), but it'll preserve resources for my offspring and not consume them for someone else's. We don't condemn the lion for doing it. Why shouldn't I? Because it's wrong. And if the government collapses and “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law?” It is still wrong, regardless of legality. IMO.

Remember, this argument assumed we agreed that God existed, it isn't a case for the existence of God by itself.

OP #4 Jesus' Resurrection

This, too, by itself is not an argument for the existence of God. But, nevertheless, onwards!

I think the meat of your argument with this one is, “If you accept witches and witchcraft as real, then what is there to prevent Jesus having faked his death or returned after the event through sorcery, illusion, or trickery?”

It couldn't have been sorcery or illusion because those are arcane spells and raise dead, resurrection, and true resurrection are divine spells, not arcane. And even though there is a Trickery domain, those divine spells aren't on that domain list. Sorry, I had to throw that in there, and, after all of this seriousness, if not one of you snarfed Jolt all over your monitor, I'll be sorely disappointed.

Serious again. I am interpreting “what is there to prevent” as “it it possible Jesus faked his death or returned after the event through sorcery, illusion, or trickery?”

Yes, it's possible. Jesus of Nazareth could have been a counterfeit, sent by Satan to lead not just Jews, but Gentiles down the wrong path and his resurrection was a trick or sorcery, not the Power of God.

But considering the message of love that He brings us and His fulfillment of prophecy, I think that it was the Power of God and not sorcery. As for a trick, after being crucified (when you get into the mechanics of it, I'm hard pressed to find a worse way to go) and getting pierced in the chest by the Roman guard just to make sure, I'd have to say that'd be a very impressive trick to pull off with that level of technology.

Though, they never talk about how much gold that wise man brought. Frankincense and myrrh, okay. But let's not forget the gold. Its always depicted as this tiny chest, but they also, typically came with a camel train. That's, potentially, a ton (literally) of gold. Maybe He bribed the guards to tie Him to the cross, hammer nails just below His arm, and smear some goat blood just to make it look good (“I'll pay you the rest when I get down.”)

I don't think that's how it went down, but I concede the possibility.

OP #5 The Immediate Experience of God

Subjective “proofs” of God are not good ways to convince a non-believer anymore than “because the Holy Bible tells me so” is a good reason (that's circular!).

They're great for believers to share with one another as they build communion and fellowship, but as a proof, they blow.

That's why I prefer the cosmological one (it uses logic and doesn't use the Holy Bible). When you posted about the cosmological argument you kept putting “for some reason” in parentheses. I hope that I have explained those reasons.

The teleological argument doesn't work separately from the cosmological one. The teleological argument can only come on the heels of the cosmological one. If one doesn't believe in an uncaused causer, then one isn't going to believe that the effect was intelligently designed. And I don't see how one can believe in an intelligent designer without believing in a God.

And now, the dissection of my argument begins.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Myrkull,
Thanks for answering, although it could be argued it's a foolhardy decision on your part, and I'm only going to deal with one thing you said, but why is God not an effect? You assert this but there's no reason given why God should be excluded from the rule. If God can be an uncaused cause, then why can't the universe be an uncaused cause without need for God to be involved? That's the special pleading case that BNW is arguing against.


I've always wanted to know, why are atheists 'activists' and faithful 'apologists'?


Grey Lensman wrote:
By your logic, nothing concrete and physical is provided by education either.

Grey, he's F'ing with you. Learn to recognize the signs. lol. ;-)


SuperSlayer wrote:
No God would give a petty human the knowledge to figure out anything regarding the blueprints for the foundations of the universe. It's an unknown when we die. If it is a faith test as told in the ancient books than death will only be the true teller of the biblical tales. One thing is for sure there is heavy mathematics regarding the universe. As if some architect had mapped it out perfectly.

Just because we don't understand it (yet) doesn't mean some super skygod built it. You're entire statement of "fact" presumes that a god exists. Essentially you just said "He exists because he wouldnt do X." I hope the logical fallacy is plain enough.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Magnu123 wrote:

+1 for being swayed from religion by logic, debate, and information. I believe this is an important exercize in self-examination as well.

I think it's funny that people who believe in God spend any time in debate. For many, this belief is not based upon evidence or argument, so their only purpose here would be to play Devil's advocate, since they have no interest in the actual contents of the debate. As for the Atheists engaging in this debate: Especially in North America, we face zealotry and religious tyranny that pervades our cultures. Without being informed and prepared to defend logic, we have little hope of removing God from the classroom, from the courthouse, and from the state institutions. Individuals have a right to spend their lives however they wish, and to think what they like, but I am not going to stand by while my tax dollars go into the pockets of an imaginary God.

I second the first statement. I went though a similar process as Meantrace, but I didnt really wise up until my late 20's. I just sortt of "had faith" because it was easier than dealing with the zealots. It still would be, but I decided that taking the easy route wasn't the right thing to do. So now I'm a gay Athiest in the American south. Without going into detail lets just say that I often feel like I'm behind enemy lines. It's exhausting. The comments about zealotry are a large reason I've decided to become as vocal as I am. Evil happens when good men and women do nothing.


Paul Watson wrote:

Myrkull,

Thanks for answering, although it could be argued it's a foolhardy decision on your part, and I'm only going to deal with one thing you said, but why is God not an effect? You assert this but there's no reason given why God should be excluded from the rule. If God can be an uncaused cause, then why can't the universe be an uncaused cause without need for God to be involved? That's the special pleading case that BNW is arguing against.

You seem to have stumbled upon the crux of the pro-god arguement.

If god created everything then who created god? "He created himself" is the standard answer, however it's really circular logic. Before he existed something had to start the process, so does god have a god? To any reasonable assertion everything pretty much falls apart from there.


A great read on Christian apologetics is G.K. Chesterton. I highly recomend it to both Christians and non-Christians.

Paul Watson wrote:

Myrkull,

Thanks for answering, although it could be argued it's a foolhardy decision on your part, and I'm only going to deal with one thing you said, but why is God not an effect? You assert this but there's no reason given why God should be excluded from the rule. If God can be an uncaused cause, then why can't the universe be an uncaused cause without need for God to be involved? That's the special pleading case that BNW is arguing against.

Comming entirely from my understanding and not trying to put words into Myrkull's mouth -or fingers-, it is the very notion of an uncaused cause, or Prima Causa as Saint Thomas Aquinas called it in his own version of the argument, that leads it to be identified as God. In other words, the argument goes the other way around: It is not that God is free from having a preceeding effect; it is that, by following the reasoning of the Cosmological Argument, one ends up reaching an original cause without a preceeding effect, and that cause is identified by the argument as being God.

Sort of "You are not the boss because you have the big office; you have the big office because you are the boss".

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Klaus,
But that presupposes God. Why can the universe not have created itself? If God can do it, why can't the universe?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grey Lensman wrote:
I've always wanted to know, why are atheists 'activists' and faithful 'apologists'?

Apologist is a label you give to your opposition.

Activist is what you call a judge who hands down a decision you don't like.


Paul Watson wrote:

Klaus,

But that presupposes God. Why can the universe not have created itself? If God can do it, why can't the universe?

The way I understand the argument, it does not presuppose God, but rather labbel the Prima Causa as God because of the different conditions Myrkull explained much better than I can, as they seem consistent with the Christian notion of what God is supposed to be.

If we were to say that "If God can be the willfull source, then why can't the universe be the willfull source?", then the only difference, as far as the specific argument goes would be a matter of naming.

Shadow Lodge

Paul Watson wrote:

Klaus,

But that presupposes God. Why can the universe not have created itself? If God can do it, why can't the universe?

Why does the universe have to have been created?


Great, so the universe is God, defined as the uncaused cause. The Big Bang was the universe creating itself. That's the simplest explanation.

Unless you feel that "uncaused causes" have to share the other attributes we normal ascribe to God: intelligence, benevolence etc.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Klaus,
thejeff said what I meant but clearer. If there is an uncaused cause, why can't it be something we are reasonably sure, barring brain in a jar scenarios, actualy exists?


thejeff wrote:
Great, so the universe is God, defined as the uncaused cause. The Big Bang was the universe creating itself. That's the simplest explanation.

It is always interesting to remember that, when Father Lemaitre first proposed the Big Bang Theory back in the early XX century (I think it was called "Primordial Atom" originally; the name "Big Bang" was actually meant as an insult to the theory), the scientific community decried it as an attempt to put God in science, because the notion of a universe that had a start was utterly absurd and raised all manners of impossible questions (back then, the accepted notion was that of a perpetually existing universe).

thejeff wrote:
Unless you feel that "uncaused causes" have to share the other attributes we normal ascribe to God: intelligence, benevolence etc.

Well, that's what Myrkull was trying to explain: Why the Cosmological Argument thinks the uncaused cause had an attribute of personality.


Paul Watson wrote:

Klaus,

But that presupposes God. Why can the universe not have created itself? If God can do it, why can't the universe?

In Mykull's argument, there is nothing that prevents the universe from being God. This argument does nothing for defending the christian idea of god. All it does is necessitate that a God must exist, but defines that god in so broad a term that any number of gods from various religeons could fit in the mold, and Athiests can reasonably accept things within the definition as creating the universe.


So, a discussion about theism...hmmm. Well, let's see, I was was raised Catholic who became agnostic who now very much believes in a higher power. Why? I the progression? Because I didn't take all of the rhetoric and other teachings at face value. I was taught this was how it was, then I questioned things, found answers from a variety of different beliefs and outlooks and still wasn't satisified. For me, what solidified my belief in a higher power, my first girlfriend got diagnosed with cervical cancer and was basically told by two different doctors before treatment began to make preparations for the worse...and it did look like things were going in that direction. I can remember while being in my apartment one night by myself, crying because of what was going and feeling powerless to do anything other than provide comfort for her, praying to God (or whatever you call the higher power) to take me instead of her. After a few minutes, a feeling of calm washed over me and I knew, KNEW she'd be alright. I can't explain it any better than that...we're no longer together, but she survived and is healthy as one could hope to be today. That may not be proof enough for many people, but it is enough for me.


Mykull wrote:


I am a Christian.
I am not a scholar.
I do not have all of the answers.
I might be wrong; it is possible God does not exist.
If you pose a question I cannot answer, I'll thank you for it and ask for the time to investigate it.

I am a tree hugging atheist.

I'm not a scholar but I think I've gone well past the point of diminishing returns reading up on the subject

I'm certain of reality. I dislike the false skepticism of saying you doubt the universe and your senses. I refute it thus *kicks the rock*

Quote:
Whether or not these are the “main ones” or not, or 12th grade or not, these are the ones posted, so these are the ones I'll try to address.

If you know any better/more popular/other ones feel free to add them to the list.

OP #1 Kalam Cosmological Argument

A. Everything that exists has a cause.

-See, this is problematic. We've never seen anything begin to exist. We've seen things change forms, even from matter to energy or energy to matter, but we have no idea how things start existing.

You started existing in your mothers womb (or pod.. whatever) but you were also that ham sandwich she ate that provided the protein to form your brain, which existed in a truck stop vending machine before your mother ever met your father. Before that it was a pig, and before that those molecules were part of a cabbage, which came from the soil, which came from a glacier, which came from the earth, which came from a cooling gas cloud off a sun, which came from another sun, which came from another sun, which came from

Conclusion C follows from the Law of Detachment. If one disagrees with C, then one must argue that either the universe does not exist, or that effects exist without causes.

or, and heres a crazy idea, i don't know.

The physics behind the origins of the universe are, to put it mildly, freaking weird. I think its unfounded and presumptuous to say that the universe CAN"T act a certain way.

Its only something we've really been looking into scientifically for 60 years. Philosophy has had the question for 4,000.

Quote:

(3) Was the cause of the beginning of the universe personal or was it an impersonal force?

If it was an impersonal force, then it was Star Wars' Force. The question then becomes, "Well, what caused the Impersonal Force to cause the beginning of the universe?" If we turn off the lights and just wait for them to come on again, whenever some impersonal force occurs, we'll wait in perpetuity. Someone has to get up and flip the switch for the lights to come on. Therefore, I believe in a personal cause.

Thats because of how lights work. For all we know this force goes around spouting off universes every negative 8 seconds.

This, then, is my most basic definition of God:

The uncaused cause of the beginning of the universe.

Quote:

OP #2

Then what caused God? Or even what caused God to cause the universe? BigNorseWolf's was specifically, “Then what designed the designer?” These are categorical fallacies; its like asking what does red taste like. God is not an effect; therefore, He has no cause. We could ask, "WHY did God cause the universe?" But that's a whole other ball of wax.

Like much of philosophy, this is a sidestep by wordplay.

God is not an effect. An effect is something that is caused. God is not something that is caused. God is uncaused.....

You have simply declared God as being uncaused but inexplicably the same is not possible for the universe itself or an unintelligent cause.

Quote:
Each of us has an internal sense of right and wrong. This is revealed whenever we bring up concepts of justice or fairness and whenever we attempt to justify our behavior. This moral code appears to transcend cultural boundaries. If I hit someone just because they are in my way, it really doesn't matter where on the planet I am, it will be seen as wrong.

WE have different cultures but we all share the same set of genes. You need a lot more than a generic god that created the universe to credit him with something as specific as our behavior.

Our genes are set for us to be in small tribal groups: we've managed to turn that into large tribes through society, but we are still incredibly tribal. For example, 100,000 dead Iraqis merits a letter to the editor at most. 100,000 dead Americans would engender open revolt.

Quote:
“Evolutionary biology provides a LOT of insight as to the benefits of a social species being moral.” If a moral code is just a social convention, then is murder wrong because it is illegal or is it illegal because it is wrong?

0

DNA is not a social convention. It actually exists, and drives a LOT more behavior than people realize.

The options are not gods or laws. Morality derives from empathy, the simple ability to see things from someone elses perspective.

I do not like being hit in the head. I feel it is wrong to hit me in the head. Because the grammar is in the way of the point i'll dispenese with it

BNW thinks BNW getting hit in the head bad.
BNW (A) is not fundamentally different from other beings (B)
A thinks B getting hit in the head is bad.

If i think getting hit in the head is bad, and i accept that other beings are largely the same as myself where it matters, then it follows that them getting hit in the head is bad, since A is interchangeable with B.

Now why evolve that? Mostly so you can lay 2 eggs without the hatchlings killing each other.

Quote:
Remember, this argument assumed we agreed that God existed, it isn't a case for the existence of God by itself.

Why should god care? You're including more

OP #4 Jesus' Resurrection

Quote:
Sorry, I had to throw that in there, and, after all of this seriousness, if not one of you snarfed Jolt all over your monitor, I'll be sorely disappointed.

and they wonder why i ask these questions on a gaming board...

Serious again. I am interpreting “what is there to prevent” as “it it possible Jesus faked his death or returned after the event through sorcery, illusion, or trickery?”

Quote:
But considering the message of love that He brings us and His fulfillment of prophecy, I think that it was the Power of God and not sorcery.

I didn't find most of his message to be about love. Most of it seemed to be "folow me to yawey"

Also IF love is the message of the new testement, its so radically divergent from old testement that the idea of being unded different management makes sense.

Quote:
As for a trick, after being crucified (when you get into the mechanics of it, I'm hard pressed to find a worse way to go) and getting pierced in the chest by the Roman guard just to make sure, I'd have to say that'd be a very impressive trick to pull off with that level of technology.

Third level illusion spell, max. only requires one guard to fail his will save.

One of the passages in the malleus talks about how a witch can turn a man into a donkey without altering one of gods creatures (which would be blasphemy). The trick is they make an illusion so compelling that even the person its affectins is fooled into thinking its real, and then summon invisible demons to help carry the weight.

WAY harder than pulling off a death on the cross.

Quote:

Maybe He bribed the guards to tie Him to the cross, hammer nails just below His arm, and smear some goat blood just to make it look good (“I'll pay you the rest when I get down.”)

I don't think that's how it went down, but I concede the possibility.

Well thats not playing by the same rules. of course faking your death with bc teck is preposterous, but so is the idea of magic, and so is the idea of the son of god who is god. You cant just take three preposterous ideas, rule the first two preposterous, and hen conclude it ZMUST be the third option.

And now, the dissection of my argument begins.

*revs chainsaw*


LazarX wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
I've always wanted to know, why are atheists 'activists' and faithful 'apologists'?

Apologist is a label you give to your opposition.

Activist is what you call a judge who hands down a decision you don't like.

Apologetics is what Christians themselves named the field. I think it's quite nice of us to use it instead of the names we'd have come up with for what they do.

Apology here is not "sorry for X" but more "sorry, you're wrong". It's a defense, not a capitulation. Which is not to say that Christianity doesn't have a lot to apologize for in the other sense, of course. That's just not the sense being used when Christians label themselves as apologists.

Apologetics do not necessarily involve crap reasoning, blatant lies, rampant irrationality, or any of the rest of the pathology we often observe, but they can. I suspect, however, they can consist of nothing but that pathology when deployed to defend untruths.


From my point of view the fact that God exists is a certainty, it is just the nature of his existence that is in dispute.

Omnipotent creator of the universe or fever dream spawned by the grasping imaginations of psychotic apes with delusions of sky parents? It’s up to you to decide, really.

Ultimately the one argument for God’s existence that actually addresses what is really going on in most cases is of course the unmentioned argument number 6: The argument for desire; God exists because I want him to.

That really is the crux of the matter, at least in my mind. I have never seen any evidence that points to the existence of an omnipotent, loving God, but it certainly is a comforting idea, at least to me, to think that there is a divine “fixer” who will put everything right in the end.

Part of it has to do with the particular brand of nondenominational Christianity I grew up with that strips all idea of God as a judge out and replaces it with what I call; “The God of Happy Endings.” Basically the idea is that Jesus’ sacrifice destroyed all the long term bad stuff in life and the end effect is that, no matter how dark this life gets, everyone is going to Paradise in the end so all each of us needs to really do is try to be responsible and make this world the best place we can before passing on.

I use my critical thinking skills whenever it comes to trying to learn what is actually happening around me but when it comes to good feelings my religion is definitely my chosen route.

I have a pretty wide experience with a number of mind altering substances but honestly my favorite high really has to be Jesus in the end, there is no feeling in the world quite like the rush of honest faith.

*snorts a line of pure, uncut Holy Spirit* Ahhh! Yeah! That’s the good stuff right there!

Awhile ago I was talking to one of my uncles and we were having a pretty involved conversation about religion. He is a Christian but having lost the two great loves of his life, his first wife in his twenties to a car accident and his second wife last year to cancer he was feeling pretty glum about how much God really cares and if things really do turn out all right in the end.

I told him that all I think he can really do is try his best in life and never forgot his loves. Who knows? Maybe when you die you will meet up with them again and the three of you can spiritually bang each other for all eternity in an epic three way love fest that lasts until the end of time.

He laughed and was like: “I…don’t know if I should be comforted by that or offended. Still, that would be pretty cool, they never met but I think that they would love each other. The idea does kinda make me feel better actually. You know kid, I haven’t decided yet if you are the worst Christian I’ve ever met or the best, but I definitely feel like it is one or the other.”


Dogbladewarrior wrote:
From my point of view the fact that God exists is a certainty, it is just the nature of his existence that is in dispute.

A point of view is not a fact. Facts remain facts independent of how one looks at them. At best you can say you believe strongly that it's true. Actual facts are facts regardless of how you feel about them.

I take offense at the constant misuse of the word "fact" and "truth" by the religious.

Any arguement you can make for the existancee of god I can make for the existance of the flying spagetti monster.

very short rant:

I am so very tired of the undeserved reverence for mystical crap. Organized religion is not a positive influence for a post dark ages society.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

You might enjoy this site. Quick summary: the "deep, spiritual truths" that Deepak Chopra speaks of are in fact indistinguishable from meaningless gobblidigook spat out by a random-phrase-generator program.

DISCLAIMER: This isn't to say that all religious thought is meaningless; only that the "Ooh! Sounds deep, man!" stuff spewed by people like Deepak is.


Apparently you did not read what I just said, here it is again:

Dogbladewarrior wrote:

From my point of view the fact that God exists is a certainty, it is just the nature of his existence that is in dispute.

Omnipotent creator of the universe or fever dream spawned by the grasping imaginations of psychotic apes with delusions of sky parents? It’s up to you to decide, really.

Do you deny the fact that their are people in this world that think God exists? Or moreover the fact that since we are talking about him that proves he exists as a concept, if nothing else? Apologies if I said that weirdly, all I was saying is that he definitely exists, if only as an idea. A pointless destinction perhaps, but it was my first reaction to the "Does God exist?" idea.


Dogbladewarrior wrote:
Ultimately the one argument for God’s existence that actually addresses what is really going on in most cases is of course the unmentioned argument number 6: The argument for desire; God exists because I want him to.

I appreciate your honesty, but do you really believe that?

What I mean is do you really believe you have the power to wish things into existence? Or are you just saying you find Yahweh an appealing fiction? I can relate a little to the second. There's a comic book character I thought about a lot when trying to get through a difficult experience a while back, but I never went around saying he was real.

But the comforting fiction usage does amount to an admission that your god does not in fact exist.

Come over to the dark side. We have cookies. :)


Samnell wrote:
Dogbladewarrior wrote:
Ultimately the one argument for God’s existence that actually addresses what is really going on in most cases is of course the unmentioned argument number 6: The argument for desire; God exists because I want him to.

I appreciate your honesty, but do you really believe that?

What I mean is do you really believe you have the power to wish things into existence? Or are you just saying you find Yahweh an appealing fiction? I can relate a little to the second. There's a comic book character I thought about a lot when trying to get through a difficult experience a while back, but I never went around saying he was real.

But the comforting fiction usage does amount to an admission that your god does not in fact exist.

Come over to the dark side. We have cookies. :)

I want telekinesis more than I have words to express, but that doesnt mean I have telekinesis.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I want telekinesis more than I have words to express, but that doesnt mean I have telekinesis.

According to some forms of ontological argument, it does:

1. Telekinesis is the greatest gift you can imagine.
2. Having telekinesis is greater than not having it.
3. Therefore, you have telekinesis.

Spoiler:
I don't really believe that; just riffing off St. Anselm: "(1) God is the greatest conceivable being; (2) It is greater to exist than not to exist; (3) Therefore, God exists."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You might enjoy this site. Quick summary: the "deep, spiritual truths" that Deepak Chopra speaks of are in fact indistinguishable from meaningless gobblidigook spat out by a random-phrase-generator program.

I find this infinitely entertaining.

And insightful!
I feel more spiritually aware already!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I want telekinesis more than I have words to express, but that doesnt mean I have telekinesis.

According to some forms of ontological argument, it does:

1. Telekinesis is the greatest gift you can imagine.
2. Having telekinesis is greater than not having it.
3. Therefore, you have telekinesis.

** spoiler omitted **

Good to know. Pardon me while I go flip cars over in the parking lot.


I believe god exists as strongly as I believe love exists, and I have never been convinced that either of them is anything like what we believe them to be.


Samnell wrote:


I appreciate your honesty, but do you really believe that?

What I mean is do you really believe you have the power to wish things into existence? Or are you just saying you find Yahweh an appealing fiction? I can relate a little to the second. There's a comic book character I thought about a lot when trying to get through a difficult experience a while back, but I never went around saying he was real.

But the comforting fiction usage does amount to an admission that your god does not in fact exist.

Come over to the dark side. We have cookies. :)

Wish things into existence in the external world? Of course not, but internally? I definitely think so.

What I said to my uncle was functionally no different than saying to you: “Samnell, maybe when you die you will meet that comic book character you love so much and have adventures with him in some other world, wouldn’t that be cool?” Equally ridiculous? Of course. But if I said it I would mean the sentiment honestly.

The thing to understand about me I suppose is that, when relating to something emotionally, fiction, as it were, is just as real to me as the world I live in. I have feelings for characters in books stronger than for some people I know in real life. The physical world is, in some strange way, to me just another fictional world I have a relationship with.

In the end I am my mind and my feelings. I would never approach the physical world I live in trying to decide what is real based on feelings. But for when deciding what has meaning for me? Absolutely.

I have never seen evidence of God, nor spoken to Him. I have never seen a miracle, or have any reason to think magic exists, but does God exist for me? Yes. Does he comfort me and make this life I live easier to deal with? Yes.

Does that make me a silly person? Sure, but that’s the truth of it, proceed to mock away if you like.


Please, god, let no one quote Dumbledore, please I'm begging you.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I find the lack of a supreme being to be vastly more comforting than the alternative.


Terquem wrote:
I believe god exists as strongly as I believe love exists, and I have never been convinced that either of them is anything like what we believe them to be.

Is that from the website?

tiny coffee golem wrote:
I am so very tired of the undeserved reverence for mystical crap. Organized religion is not a positive influence for a post dark ages society.

I'm actually quite taken with disorganized religion.


Dogbladewarrior wrote:


Does that make me a silly person? Sure, but that’s the truth of it, proceed to mock away if you like.

Actually I think it makes you an atheist. :)


xn0o0cl3 wrote:
I find the lack of a supreme being to be vastly more comforting than the alternative.

I agree.

Edit: It makes me appreciate the time I have more than the promise of life after death.


Evil Lincoln wrote:


Is that from the website?

I don't understand the question. I honestly believe that I was making that up as I wrote it. If it has already been said somewhere else, I was unaware of it.


Samnell wrote:


Actually I think it makes you an atheist. :)

If the question is do I believe God has an existence in the real world, based on the evidence I would have to say no, so I am an atheist.

If the question is do I believe God is real and that he has a positive effect on my feelings, than the answer is yes, I am a theist.

I'm sure that clears up all your questions =P


Grey Lensman wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
There's nothing productive about gaming either.

You mean there's nothing productive about a past-time that involves getting out and interacting with real people, creative problem solving, and encourages learning about history and literature?

My meaning of a productive pastime must be off. Silly me, I thought it included anything that enriched my life.

However, kites are VERY productive. Try it out! It'll change your life!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
xn0o0cl3 wrote:
I find the lack of a supreme being to be vastly more comforting than the alternative.

Not me! Being a moral person without one is a lot of work -- I need to actually consider how my actions will affect others, and compare the answer I get with past experiences, and keep refining this as I live longer and accrete more experiences. It would be much easier to just join a fan club and follow their guidebook.


TOZ wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Klaus,

But that presupposes God. Why can the universe not have created itself? If God can do it, why can't the universe?
Why does the universe have to have been created?

I find myself agreeing with you a lot in this thread, TOZ.

I have a layman's theory about the Big Bang: this has all happened before, and this will all happen again. I suspect that there is a never-ending cycle of Big Bang, the universe expanding, then contracting until it's infinitely small, and then exploding again in another Big Bang. The effect is the cause, and the cause the effect. It didn't start and it won't end. Like I said, it's a layman's theory based on a discovery channel program and a gut feeling. But whatever, I get to believe what I want. :)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Klaus,

But that presupposes God. Why can the universe not have created itself? If God can do it, why can't the universe?
Why does the universe have to have been created?
I find myself agreeing with you a lot in this thread, TOZ.

I've always found you a gentleman of discerning taste, TS. ;)


I prefer the idea that all matter and energy are just sort of residue left from something (strings maybe?) oscillating between existence and non-existence in our reality.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
xn0o0cl3 wrote:
I find the lack of a supreme being to be vastly more comforting than the alternative.
Not me! Being a moral person without one is a lot of work -- I need to actually consider how my actions will affect others, and compare the answer I get with past experiences, and keep refining this as I live longer and accrete more experiences. It would be much easier to just join a fan club and follow their guidebook.

You would be in the same boat in said club Kirth, in fact I suspect it would be even harder for you.

Religion is not =/= being moral

(oh wait, you were being sarcastic, sorry, kinda tired right now.)


meatrace wrote:
I prefer the idea that all matter and energy are just sort of residue left from something (strings maybe?) oscillating between existence and non-existence in our reality.
Second-Rate Apologist wrote:
Yes! Ergo Jesus.


Dogbladewarrior wrote:
(oh wait, you were being sarcastic, sorry, kinda tired right now.)

Not at all sarcastic about how I do it now, but pretty sarcastic about the guidebook alternative.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Not at all sarcastic about how I do it now, but pretty sarcastic about the guidebook alternative.

I see. Yeah if God:

a)existed in a way where you could have first hand conversations with him and

b) proved to you that he both knew what morality was and that he was worth listening to

it would be pretty cool, aside from that very specific scenario though we are all prolly better off just figuring things out for ourselves, at least in my opinion.

Holy books and ancient creeds I have found are not a good guidebook to the way things actually work.


Love God, love your Neighbour, and love Yourself always works pretty good for me as a baseline. But being religious doesn't mean you scrap your critical thought; much on the contrary, you apply it to your faith. We are supposed to question it constantly. As John Paul II said, you cannot know if you really believe in something unless you put your faith to the test.

As for my personal reasons for believing in God, I guess I just feel He exists (might be psychosis too, though. I always keep my options open); if I ever stopped feeling that, I guess I would stop believing in God (though probably would try and look out for it again). The three or four years through which I underwent a severe crisis of faith were essentially a time I didn't feel Him anymore. What made me relapse? I'm not sure, as I don't think it was a thing in particular, just more like a series of experiences.

I've always felt we are not supposed to try and find proof about God to teach unto others; we should just act in accordance and let people discover Him by themselves. If they do, maybe they'll believe in Him, or maybe not.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
We've never seen anything begin to exist. We've seen things change forms, even from matter to energy or energy to matter, but we have no idea how things start existing.

thefreedictionary defines exist as an intransitive verb meaning to have actual being; be real.

I began to exist. At one point I did not. I was conceived and then began existing. Temporally, my parents having intercourse is the cause of my existence (I am the effect of their copulation). I suppose, as you put it, I could say that at one point I was in the form of my mom's egg and my dad's sperm and then changed form to become me. Except that separate from fertilization the being that is me would never have developed from the egg alone or the sperm alone. I am not claiming that the ham sandwich caused me. I agree that a part of that pig was incorporated into my being, but it didn't cause me. So I contend that at one point I did not exist and then I began to exist.

I think you're saying that I did exist, just in a different form. But that pig was not me absent of the causes that brought it to my mom's plate. I wasn't real, I was just potential. I guess I'm saying that changing forms constitutes bringing things into existence.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I think its unfounded and presumptuous to say that the universe CAN"T act a certain way.

I think I'm missing your point. How does this refute either of the first two premises of the Kamlan Cosmological Argument?

Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe exists.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.

What is the “certain way” that you're asserting I'm claiming the universe can't act?

I am saying that things that are, are effects and effects necessitate a cause.
I am saying that the universe is.
Therefore, the universe is an effect which had a cause.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Like much of philosophy, this is a sidestep by wordplay.

God is not an effect. An effect is something that is caused. God is not something that is caused. God is uncaused.....
You have simply declared God as being uncaused but inexplicably the same is not possible for the universe itself or an unintelligent cause.

If we're at this stage then we've passed the point of whether or not the universe had a beginning. I argued that it did. If it had a beginning, then it was begun. What began the thing that begun it all? No, we've gone back to the very beginning, there isn't anything earlier. We're at the First Cause of it all; a thing that has no cause because it is not an effect. It is, therefore, in a different category and to ask for the cause of something that isn't in the category of cause and effect is erroneous.

JOE: “What was President Obama's ruling on abortion?”
JANE: “The president is in the category of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, he doesn't make rulings.”
JOE: “Oh, that's just a sidestep by wordplay.”
JANE: “Not really.”

“You inexplicably . . .” I did explain that if the universe was uncaused, then it came from nothing. And something cannot come from nothing.

Why is it not possible for the universe to cause itself. The universe exists. It is an effect. All effects have a cause. If the universe causes itself then it is an effect that is its own cause. This is a causal loop.

or an unintelligent cause. When I look at the complexity and intricacy of how everything works I find it more probable that the cause is intelligent rather than unintelligent. The whole “a 1000 monkeys banging away on typewriters aren't going to ever write Hamlet.”

Take the sandcastle on the beach. Is it more reasonable to think that it was designed or just randomly thrown together by tidal forces and wave action?

The NT being radically different from the OT. This, I think, would get into a major threadjack. And, as I stated earlier, using the Holy Bible to make a case for the existence of God doesn't really work. I'll just say that I got something different from the Holy Bible than you did. And, yes, I have actually read it.

As for the trick of Jesus' death and resurrection, I mean trick as in prestidigitation (no sorcery).

BigNorseWolf wrote:
of course faking your death with bc teck is preposterous, but so is the idea of magic, and so is the idea of the son of god who is god. You cant just take three preposterous ideas, rule the first two preposterous, and hen conclude it ZMUST be the third option.

No, it isn't. I explained how he could've faked it by paying off the guards. It isn't preposterous; it's a possibility. Magic isn't preposterous, either. Remember, I've said that Jesus' resurrection isn't a good argument for God's existence. So if we're talking about Jesus' resurrection, then we're accepting for this argument, that the Christian God exists. If we don't agree with that much, for this argument, then we have nothing to debate about this.

Question: Why do atheists (stereotypically) lamb-baste theists for pushing their beliefs on others when they do the exact same thing? Atheists believe there is no God and go to great lengths to push that belief on others.

xn0o0cl3 wrote:
I find the lack of a supreme being to be vastly more comforting than the alternative.

“If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But, if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again. We cannot do without it, and we cannot do with it. God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again. They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger – according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way.” – C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity


I guess I just believe too much in there being an objective reality to believe that god exists BECAUSE you believe him. I believe in things which are rationally convincing, and I've furthermore never felt the presence of any supernatural phenomena.

I've had no particular difficulties leading what I would call a moral life without the belief in god/gods, but then I've also decided for myself what constitutes morality.

51 to 100 of 556 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 5 Main arguments of god All Messageboards