What miracles has God done for you? Don't say anything stupid, like "He made the gas prices lower."
I must warn you, I am an atheist and will attempt to shoot down whatever you say.
God does not exist appart from yourself. What God did for me is that I Awakened and realized that I am Him.
(Bull's eye ready and waiting.)
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
God does not exist appart from yourself. What God did for me is that I Awakened and realized that I am Him.
(Bull's eye ready and waiting.) |
I thought you were a theist?so do you think God is like interconnected like Taoism?
Such a profound question.
First things first, I dont believe that god exist, if he dous then thats fine by me.
But I don't think you can find prove he dousnt or dous exist, I mean you would first have to make sure what a god exactly is. Also even if you manage that people will always see things as they see fit. For 1 person its an act of god for an other its just a highly unlikely thing to happen, so you need to define what an act of god is. If you ever succeed to agree on this then maybe you can prove he/she/it dous or dous not exist. But in the end the things you define as god even if you do it as a group are defined by people who either believe or dont believe and will thus influence the outcome. And also who are we to say god exist or not?
In religion God only exists based on the book, so I guess this is more of a discussion of whether or not religious gods exist.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| In religion God only exists based on the book, so I guess this is more of a discussion of whether or not religious gods exist. |
That depends on the religion. Not all religions have scripture.There is no evidence for the existence of any god(s).
Of course many theists would disagree until you challenge them on the "evidence", then they ether ignore the challenge, change the subject of present "evidence thats based of misunderstandings and fallacy's.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
There is no evidence for the existence of any god(s).
Of course many theists would disagree until you challenge them on the "evidence", then they ether ignore the challenge, change the subject of present "evidence thats based of misunderstandings and fallacy's. |
lets wait and see... 
| Quote: |
| There is no evidence for the existence of any god(s). |
So what? dous it really matter? Isnt it all about the message religion is trying to spread?Peace, love, happiness, and the Annihilation of those that oppose this. What a horrible thing!
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | There is no evidence for the existence of any god(s).
Of course many theists would disagree until you challenge them on the "evidence", then they ether ignore the challenge, change the subject of present "evidence thats based of misunderstandings and fallacy's. |
lets wait and see... |
Why don't you tell us what kind of evidence you would accept?
Clearly theists have evidence that they accept, even if it is only their own gut feelings. Would their gut feelings be acceptible evidence to you? i'm guessing no.
So why don't you specify what, exactly, you want.There simply isn't any proof. We've only seen disproof of concepts by religions - for example Mount Olympus. Of course, there are connections with some religion's scriptures and proven places in history...
| Indi wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | There is no evidence for the existence of any god(s).
Of course many theists would disagree until you challenge them on the "evidence", then they ether ignore the challenge, change the subject of present "evidence thats based of misunderstandings and fallacy's. |
lets wait and see... |
Why don't you tell us what kind of evidence you would accept?
Clearly theists have evidence that they accept, even if it is only their own gut feelings. Would their gut feelings be acceptible evidence to you? i'm guessing no.
So why don't you specify what, exactly, you want. |
A tricky question. It is difficult to say anything other than an unscientific miracle. Anything else, I would only know after it occurs 
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | There is no evidence for the existence of any god(s).
Of course many theists would disagree until you challenge them on the "evidence", then they ether ignore the challenge, change the subject of present "evidence thats based of misunderstandings and fallacy's. |
lets wait and see... |
Why don't you tell us what kind of evidence you would accept?
Clearly theists have evidence that they accept, even if it is only their own gut feelings. Would their gut feelings be acceptible evidence to you? i'm guessing no.
So why don't you specify what, exactly, you want. |
A tricky question. It is difficult to say anything other than an unscientific miracle. Anything else, I would only know after it occurs |
Looking for post-hoc proof is a sure way to fail to find any meaningful truth: whatever you want to believe will always be proven - and you can see plenty of examples of that around here.
The proper way to go about testing a hypothesis is to determine the fail condition before testing. Anything else is just inviting biases to creep in. | Revvion wrote: |
| But I don't think you can find prove he dousnt or dous exist, |
Thats not necessarily true. It is true that you can not disprove a deistic god(s) that create the universe then dose nothing or creates the universe ion such a way that it looks like everything happened naturally but theists have belief of what the nature of there god(s) nature and you can use those to make testable predictions (example: we should find this in this situation) and if (when) those predictions are falsified you can then alter the idea of the nature of god(s) then make more testable predictions and test those.
In the end of course you would end up with a non-personal deistic god(s) which can not be disproven but with no reason to believe in it ether. | Indi wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | There is no evidence for the existence of any god(s).
Of course many theists would disagree until you challenge them on the "evidence", then they ether ignore the challenge, change the subject of present "evidence thats based of misunderstandings and fallacy's. |
lets wait and see... |
Why don't you tell us what kind of evidence you would accept?
Clearly theists have evidence that they accept, even if it is only their own gut feelings. Would their gut feelings be acceptible evidence to you? i'm guessing no.
So why don't you specify what, exactly, you want. |
A tricky question. It is difficult to say anything other than an unscientific miracle. Anything else, I would only know after it occurs |
Looking for post-hoc proof is a sure way to fail to find any meaningful truth: whatever you want to believe will always be proven - and you can see plenty of examples of that around here.
The proper way to go about testing a hypothesis is to determine the fail condition before testing. Anything else is just inviting biases to creep in. |
Nosir, thats not what I meant. I just meant the seemingly basic principle: You can't know that something exists until it exists.
(that simple statement has a surprisingly high bafflement to simplicity ratio.) | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
Nosir, thats not what I meant. I just meant the seemingly basic principle: You can't know that something exists until it exists.
|
In other words, in order to prove that something exists, you must prove that it exists? Have you, little mental one, ever heard of circular reasoning?
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| (that simple statement has a surprisingly high bafflement to simplicity ratio.) |
Quite baffling to those that are easily persuaded by Ivory Tower BS nonsense.Theists don't understand what it takes to have evidence for the existence of god(s). You need something that can be attributed to a god(s) with no other grater possibility's. To prove god(s) you would have to take that "god hypothesis" and make testable prediction, then test those predictions and them not fail. But even that would not prove god(s) all that would mean is that god(s) is the best current explanation based on currently available evidence.
But of course theists have nothing that even comes near that. All theists can pull out is an arguments from ignorance ("we don't know why blah happens thus it must be God") which is not evidence, especially when there are other possibility's more plausible than God.
Mike1reynolds...your pithy insults do not shake me in the least.
I was saying that you cannot know something exists, until you know it exists.
I did not say you cannot prove it exists until it exists. But the difference there may be incomprehensible to your "advanced" mind.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
Nosir, thats not what I meant. I just meant the seemingly basic principle: You can't know that something exists until it exists.
(that simple statement has a surprisingly high bafflement to simplicity ratio.) |
i believe that is a statement of the philosophical school of thought known as empiricism, but it's hard to be sure because the wording is a little unclear. It is the dominant school of thought in epistemology, and has been for a long time, although, of course, it's still debated even today.
The idea is that it is impossible to prove that something exists a priori, which means, before it's known. The opposite of that is the belief that it is possible to know that something exists by reason alone.
It's really hard to grasp any of this without real examples... but it's also really hard to make real examples. However, consider this example:
The ontological argument for the existence of God goes like this:
1.) God is that thing which is greater than everything else in the universe.
2.) Any thing that exists is greater than any thing that does not exist.
3.) Therefore, God must exist.
Now, this argument is obviously flawed, but the reason why it's flawed is actually really complex. For now, pretend that it's valid. If it's valid, then it's a way to prove that God exists without using any empirical evidence, or to put it another way, without using any evidence from the universe, only using pure reason.
That's what a priori knowledge is, knowledge that can be gained without using any kind of evidence or observation, using only pure reason.
Most philosophers believe that kind of knowledge is impossible. You cannot know things about the universe without using evidence from the universe (although you can prove things by pure logic within realms of pure logic, such as mathematics).
So in this case, it sounds to me that what you're saying is that it is impossible to prove the existence of a god by reason alone... there has to be some kind of empirical evidence.
Correct?Incorrect.
JK, I didn't read the whole thing. 
Sometimes I debate the argument of 'fate' and also the butterfly effect. But generally (for me at least) it is useless to argue about these things, however it may help out some people. | Indi wrote: |
So in this case, it sounds to me that what you're saying is that it is impossible to prove the existence of a god by reason alone... there has to be some kind of empirical evidence.
Correct? |
Very well said, although incorrect. Lol, when I said "cannot know something exists, until you know it exists" I was reffering to a miracle. I was saying in order to believe God, I would need a miracle so bizzarre and unscientific, a human mind could never possible know what it would be until after it happened. (then mike1reynolds steps in, says something he thinks is correct (when it usually isn't) and insults me as usual.) Anyway, although an incorrect evaluation of my statement, your post is quite on topic. Lemme see if I can snipe your ontalogical argument:
1. Step one cannot be proven since God has not proven to be a thing, a thing is something which exists, whether it is a photon, atom, thought or vacuum. There is no evidence that God is any of these things.
2. Ontalogic arguments like the ones you provided are fallacies in themselves, here is an example (rather a counter-example):
1. Pop-tarts taste better than toast.
2. Anything that tastes better than something else must taste good.
3. Therefore, pop-tarts must taste (crazy) good.
Regardless of the fact that pop-tarts do indeed taste good, I think you can see the flimsiness of my argument.why don't you believe in god? because u can't see it/he/what so ever?..God is sumthin we can say like smell..u can't see it..but u can sniff it..and you trust the smell is there..just like that
| creezalird wrote: |
| why don't you believe in god? because u can't see it/he/what so ever?..God is sumthin we can say like smell..u can't see it..but u can sniff it..and you trust the smell is there..just like that |
Theres no evidence for the existence of God thus no reason to believe in God. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| creezalird wrote: | | why don't you believe in god? because u can't see it/he/what so ever?..God is sumthin we can say like smell..u can't see it..but u can sniff it..and you trust the smell is there..just like that |
Theres no evidence for the existence of God thus no reason to believe in God. |
How about trying to prove God don't exist? I personally no longer believe in God. Why? Generally, I see humans as the main control of power, God has in no way, directly or indirectly changed human life. And the bible it seems, did not really start when the world was created. Because when the world was first created, Dinosaurs existed, yet, in the bible, Genesis ( was it? ), it started with plants, animals, humans even.
No matter how huge a miracle is, it would still be the cause of human and/or luck. Unless of course God appeared right in front of me and proved he existed, no amount of miracle or written prove ( which all can be proven to be false ) can convince me. I seek no evidence that He exists. I only seek that He appears right before me, or I'll never believe. | creezalird wrote: |
| why don't you believe in god? because u can't see it/he/what so ever?..God is sumthin we can say like smell..u can't see it..but u can sniff it..and you trust the smell is there..just like that |
So your saying we can smell god. rofl.
JenTeshi-what you say is true, thats why in religious documents they say over and over again you must have faith, and that people who need a miracle to believe are simple minded and will be thrown into hellfire...blah blah blah. | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Very well said, although incorrect. Lol, when I said "cannot know something exists, until you know it exists" I was reffering to a miracle. I was saying in order to believe God, I would need a miracle so bizzarre and unscientific, a human mind could never possible know what it would be until after it happened. |
So "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"? All true, but if you don't specify beforehand what you want to happen, how will you ever be sure that when something really far out does happen that it's not simply some freak of nature, or the product of superintelligent aliens manipulating our senses, or...? And so on.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Lemme see if I can snipe your ontalogical argument: |
You can try, but i can promise you that you won't succeed. ^_^; This problem vexed philosophers for 800 years. Some of the most brilliant minds in all of history bought it wholeheartedly, including Renι Descartes of cartesian geometry fame. The final solution was developed over 200 years before Immanuel Kant finally put the nail in the coffin. The problem looks simple, and most people know reflexively that there's wrong with it. But as Bertrand Russell said: "It is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." And Russell may have been one of the smartest men in the 20th century, smarter even than Einstein.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| 1. Step one cannot be proven since God has not proven to be a thing, a thing is something which exists, whether it is a photon, atom, thought or vacuum. There is no evidence that God is any of these things. |
That objection doesn't have a leg to stand on. God, if he exists, must necessarily be greater than everything else in the universe. What you're pretty much doing is saying asking someone to prove that a triangle has three sides. But that's absurd. A triangle is defined as any shape that has three sides. If and only if it has three sides then it is a triangle, by the very definition of the word triangle. It doesn't make sense to turn the sentence around and say it's not proven: "If and only if a shape has three sides, then it is a triangle... but prove to me that if a shape is a triangle it has three sides." What can you say to that except: "But... you just did...?"
God, whether he exists or not, must be that which is greater than all things. But that can't be possible unless he exists (because anything that exists would be greater than him). Therefore, he must exist.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
2. Ontalogic arguments like the ones you provided are fallacies in themselves, here is an example (rather a counter-example):
1. Pop-tarts taste better than toast.
2. Anything that tastes better than something else must taste good.
3. Therefore, pop-tarts must taste (crazy) good.
Regardless of the fact that pop-tarts do indeed taste good, I think you can see the flimsiness of my argument. |
Well, first, that's not an ontological argument - an ontological argument is an argument that tries to prove that something exists.
Second, it's not even a good argument. The second premise is not true - maybe grasshoppers taste better than tree bark, but that doesn't mean that grasshoppers must taste good... they can simply taste less bad. And the conclusion has nothing to do with the rest of the argument - you went from good to crazy good.
It's possible to rework the argument into something usable:
1.) Pop-tarts taste better than toast.
2.) Anything that tastes better than something else cannot be the worst tasting thing in the world.
3.) Therefore, pop-tarts aren't the worst tasting thing in the world.
Or maybe:
1.) Pop-tarts taste better than toast.
2.) Toast tastes alright.
3.) Therefore, pop-tarts taste at least alright, if not better.
But either way, it's not an ontological argument.
| JinTenshi wrote: |
| How about trying to prove God don't exist? |
Impossible. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. You can prove that it's never been observed in any way... but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can prove that it's illogical and maybe even paradoxically contradictory, which would be enough to prove that something doesn't exist if you could prove that only things that are logical can exist (or if you were working in a realm that is defined by logic, like mathematics)... so again that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.I think I found a flaw in your argument, Indi.
1.) God is that thing which is greater than everything else in the universe.
2.) Any thing that exists is greater than any thing that does not exist.
3.) Therefore, God must exist.
1. God has not been proven to be a thing. Also, there is no proof God is greater than everything else in the the universe.
2. The meaning of "Greater" has not been defined, also, statement 2 is only a point of view. (Suicidal people might not agree with statement 2.)
3. 1 and 2 have no evidence, 3 is invalid.
| Indi wrote: |
| Impossible. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. You can prove that it's never been observed in any way... but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
Why impossible? If something has never been observed in any way BY anyone, doesn't that mean it does not exist? ( Logically that is. ) For example, you can prove that a troll does not exist simply because no one has ever seen it before, simply because no one has heard its sound before, simply because it has not came into contact with our 5 senses.
God does not exist. ( Very assuming, I know. ) Ever think about this way? Someone saw a broken ship in Greece ( Or where was it? Noah's Ark that is. ) And came up with a grand story about it. Which followed by another grand story by another and so on and so forth. And thus came a bible. Why can't it be that way? A bible, a grand story book?
Last edited by JinTenshi on Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:15 am; edited 1 time in total | mike1reynolds wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | Nosir, thats not what I meant. I just meant the seemingly basic principle: You can't know that something exists until it exists.
|
In other words, in order to prove that something exists, you must prove that it exists? Have you, little mental one, ever heard of circular reasoning?
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | (that simple statement has a surprisingly high bafflement to simplicity ratio.) |
Quite baffling to those that are easily persuaded by Ivory Tower BS nonsense. |
Mike, you would do well to drop your constant insults of those who do not share your opinions.
People spend so much time debating the "evidence" behind a God, when most widespread religions and philosophies call for a simple concept typically related to as "faith". The timeless analogy of holding faith in a simple wooden chair has been related to me countless times, yet it doesn't quite do justice to the requirement made by most scriptures. In a metaphorical sense, we're all sitting at the top of a sheer cliff with a body of water at the base. There is no telling how deep the water at the bottom is, and there is no way we can measure it. On the count of three, we must all make a decision, dive into the water or remain on the cliff. This is the sort of faith which is required by God for so called "salvation". | JinTenshi wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Impossible. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. You can prove that it's never been observed in any way... but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
Why impossible? If something has never been observed in any way BY anyone, doesn't that mean it does not exist? ( Logically that is. ) For example, you can prove that a troll does not exist simply because no one has ever seen it before, simply because no one has heard its sound before, simply because it has not came into contact with our 5 senses.
God does not exist. ( Very assuming, I know. ) Ever think about this way? Someone saw a broken ship in Greece ( Or where was it? Noah's Ark that is. ) And came up with a grand story about it. Which followed by another grand story by another and so on and so forth. And thus came a bible. Why can't it be that way? A bible, a grand story book? |
2000 years ago, according you, quasars wouldn't exist. Actually, according to you, NOTHING would exists if humans did not exist.
JJGY-Nice analogy. What's JJGY lols. And yeah, nothing exist unless humans proved it to exist. Zebras exist because we made physical contact with it, and we can smell it, etc. We proved they exist. And thousands of years ago ( Before the so called Earth was created by God, which in actual fact is just after Ice Age ) humans proved a lot of existance.
We continued proving it, even till now, we still discover existance of animals never seen before. Latest technology leads to more profound discoveries. ( Which may even lead to the proving of God, who knows for sure? ) So yes, according to me, Humans proves everythng. And nothing exists unless humans proved it so.
F.Y.I. Maybe I'm just being dumb, but ever thought in my perspective before?
The way everything fits so perfect together. This all had to be created by someone or something. I don't think it matters whether or not we go into specifics, though.
Jen Tenshi-JJGY is the user who posted directly below you. Also, according to you, without humans, nothing would exist. I'm not even going to tell you how incorrect that statement is.
MissDixy-Not neccesarily. Evolution could have developed all of our senses, like happiness, sadness, to make us survive longer. Also, look how bad life is.
Check out my slightly contradictory topic: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-73688.html | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
Jen Tenshi-JJGY is the user who posted directly below you. Also, according to you, without humans, nothing would exist. I'm not even going to tell you how incorrect that statement is.
MissDixy-Not neccesarily. Evolution could have developed all of our senses, like happiness, sadness, to make us survive longer. Also, look how bad life is.
Check out my slightly contradictory topic: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-73688.html |
I think Jen Tenshi's point was more along the lines of the actually meaning of "existence". Although flawed at it's roots of interpretation, his interpretation puts into perspective how many people may look at the unknown. | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| I think I found a flaw in your argument, Indi. |
First of all, i should point out that it's not my argument. ^_^
Second, it is certainly flawed, but the flaws in it are very subtle and almost impossible to detect without formal training. Observe:
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
1.) God is that thing which is greater than everything else in the universe.
2.) Any thing that exists is greater than any thing that does not exist.
3.) Therefore, God must exist.
1. God has not been proven to be a thing. Also, there is no proof God is greater than everything else in the the universe.
2. The meaning of "Greater" has not been defined, also, statement 2 is only a point of view. (Suicidal people might not agree with statement 2.)
3. 1 and 2 have no evidence, 3 is invalid. |
Nope.
1a.) God doesn't have to be proven to be God. God is God, by definition. God is defined as the thing that is greater than everything else in the universe - or to put it another way, whatever that thing is that is greater than everything in the universe, it will be God.
1b.) God doesn't have to be proven to be any "thing" for this argument to work.
1c.) God has to be greater than everything else in the universe if he created the universe. Lesser order things cannot create higher order things. It is true that multiple lesser order things could combine to create something of higher order, but a single lesser order thing cannot do it alone.
In general, your objection to premise number 1 is misdirected. God has not been proven to exist, sure. But God, whether it exists or not, is God. What part of that do you object to? That's all that the first premise is saying. God, whether it exists or not, must be that thing that is greater than everything else in the universe. It can't be God if it's not. If God doesn't exist, then he would still be greater than the universe... if only in our imagination.
2a.) Greater is defined in this context. i just didn't bother to give the definition. If you like, here it is, in brief: anything that can contain the pattern or idea of another thing in some way must be greater than that other thing or identical to it. If they are not identical, then the first thing must be greater than the second. Note that "contain" doesn't mean literally physically contain, but conceptually contain, otherwise a big plastic bag would be greater than a man. A man can contain in his mind the idea of what a big plastic bag is - its structure and so on. A man can understand a big plastic bag. A big plastic bag cannot understand what a man is, or contain the concept of a man in any way.
2b.) It is not an opinion. If you had to choose between having a hundred dollars that existed and having a hundred dollars that does not exist, which would you prefer? If you had to choose whether not to have a cancer that existed or a cancer that did not exist, which would you rather not have? In all cases, the answer would be that the thing that exists has more meaning than the thing that does not. The thing that exists contains all of the pattern of the thing that does not exist... but has the extra property of existence. Thus it is greater.
In general, your objection to premise 2 is that you don't understand how or why something that exists must be greater than (or superior to, if you prefer) something that does not. Rather than simply blindly objecting, think about it. Can you think of any way that a non-existent X is greater than an existent X? (And i don't mean better, because obviously a non-existent tumor is better than an existent one. i mean greater, as in which one has more impact on the universe, the tumor that doesn't exist or the one that does? Obviously, the one that does.) | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Jen Tenshi-JJGY is the user who posted directly below you. Also, according to you, without humans, nothing would exist. I'm not even going to tell you how incorrect that statement is. |
Correction. Without humans, existance woult not be proven. But doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that no one has proven it, or has no need to prove it. Animals does not need to actually prove something exists, simple because they do not have the need nor the intellect. Without humans, sure, things would exist, but once again, my main point is, it would not be proven.
Ok. So I'm having difficulty explaining. If I make no sense, forgive me.Mr. EAP I think that it is wonderful you would even have enough kohona's to question the existence of deities in general. Not to profess that I'm the Library of God, but the greatest thing to religion and faith is the option to not believe or profess you belief in choosen diety. The mere fact that not anyone one of the most educated people in the world can even give a definate yes or no answer to your original question is enough to let any person with the slightest idea of the meaning of the word faith question themselves on the thought of "God". The whole purpose of religion in general is to give you a choice to believe or not believe, but you have chosen not to open that part of your brain, yet overload it with the worthless questions in which you will never get the answers to, and that is your "GOD GIVEN RIGHT". But just for the moment think about this if the onotalogical argurament is not true then why would did you waste your time asking this question. You must believe to a certain degree, but you are choosing to deny those beliefs because it fancies your spirit at this present moment! 
| missdixy wrote: |
| The way everything fits so perfect together. This all had to be created by someone or something. I don't think it matters whether or not we go into specifics, though. |
1.Things don't fit together perfectly, there are many imperfections. Things only loosely fit together. Take the food chain for example, in many places if you take out a certain species or certain species, the food Chain falls apart.
2. It is not uncommon for complex things to form on there own with out the help of any intelligence. Just look at snow flakes. | JinTenshi wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | Jen Tenshi-JJGY is the user who posted directly below you. Also, according to you, without humans, nothing would exist. I'm not even going to tell you how incorrect that statement is. |
Correction. Without humans, existance woult not be proven. But doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that no one has proven it, or has no need to prove it. Animals does not need to actually prove something exists, simple because they do not have the need nor the intellect. Without humans, sure, things would exist, but once again, my main point is, it would not be proven.
Ok. So I'm having difficulty explaining. If I make no sense, forgive me. |
No no, you're on to an interesting point. It's just a really complex and esoteric point, so it's going to be really, really tough to put into words. That's not your fault, that's the fault of the point you're trying to make.
First though, let me comment on this: | JinTenshi wrote: |
| God does not exist. ( Very assuming, I know. ) Ever think about this way? Someone saw a broken ship in Greece ( Or where was it? Noah's Ark that is. ) And came up with a grand story about it. Which followed by another grand story by another and so on and so forth. And thus came a bible. Why can't it be that way? A bible, a grand story book? |
It certainly could be that way, and it probably was. But just because something is more probable than something else, that doesn't necessarily prove that it must have happened that way. History is full of remarkably improbable events. Maybe there was a man with mysterious powers walking around the middle east in the first century CE, who talked about being divine (or powered by the divine). Maybe he actually was divine. The records from that time have been so distorted by millenia of theocratic control over them that it's almost impossible to prove either way now. Sure, it's rather unlikely that any of those things happened, but not impossible.
So now back to the main point. You're suggesting that anything outside the sphere of human experience simply doesn't exist. So, for example, zebras simply didn't exist in the universe until the person that saw a zebra for the first time did so. Correct?
Alright, put that idea aside for a moment and consider this question: when the person first saw the first zebra...where did that zebra come from? It has to be one of three things: either the zebra had always existed (or at least, it existed for some time before the person saw it), or something created the zebra for him to see just as he first saw it, or he created the zebra himself when he first saw it.
The first idea is what we generally believe - that the universe exists objectively, independent of what humans observe. So there's not much more to be said about that for now.
The second idea requires a god who - to put it in common terms - makes shit up as they go along. Nothing exists until the god creates it for us to see. The universe is just an illusion created specifically for the benefit of humanity. (Interestingly enough, it was this kind of idea that first turned Darwin off God. He wondered why God would create deep sea creatures that no human could possibly see except for the few that washed up from time to time.) The problem with this idea is that it's just too fantastic. It violates parsimony in the most absurd ways. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's false, but it does mean that it makes no sense to believe that it's true.
The third idea is the most interesting possibility... it is us who are creating the universe around us as we go. It's possible, but is it likely? No. Why? Well, consider the zebra case. Suppose that the first zebra was seen by two people at the same time. One of them created it, the other simply saw what the first had created. So far, no problems. But now, suppose that the first zebra was seen by two people in two different places so that they two people that saw them couldn't communicate. In other words, there were two expeditions, in two different places, with no way to communicate with each other... and one group saw a zebra in one place while the other group saw a zebra in another place. What that means is that both people must have created the zebras they saw... but how could two different people who had never communicated create the same kind of (strange) animal? There are only two possible ways that it could happen: either something else, a third party, aka God, created the zebras (and because God made both zebras it's no surprise that two different people would see the same kind of animal independently)... or the zebras were not created by anyone (they just existed in the universe until they were seen).
So, to sum it up: when something new is first discovered, it either existed before it was discovered, or it was created for the discoverer by something (like God), or it was created by the discoverer. The fact that people can independently observe the same consistent universe rules out the last possibility. Rational thought rules out the second possibility. And so we're left with the idea that the universe exists objectively, whether humans observe it or not.
So now that we know that things must exist that we haven't seen, the question is... can we prove that they do without observing them? And if something doesn't exist, can we prove that?
The answer to the first question is: not unless you believe that it's possible to prove something a priori. If it's not possible to do that, then it's not possible to prove something exists without observing it, directly or indirectly.
At first glance, the answer to the second question appears to be the same: not unless you believe that it's possible to prove something a priori. But there's a catch in this case. What conditions would make it impossible for something to exist? That it's illogical? Paradoxical? Absurd? Can you prove that something that is any or all of those things can't exist? Turns out you can't. We normally assume that something that's totally illogical or paradoxical can't exist because we've never seen something that is... but just because we've never seen it doesn't mean it can't exist. Therefore, it is actually literally impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.Indi, I honestly don't have time right now to read everything you wrote, so I'm guessing the right way to defeat ontalogicalness is to say that text alone isn't a proof. Am I right?
bebakl8t3r 
@Indi : You brought your point clearly across to me. I'm very impressed and you almost had me there. And I had to actually kill a few million of my brain cells just to think of something to actually rebuttle what you've actually said.
You said, "either the zebra had always existed (or at least, it existed for some time before the person saw it), or something created the zebra for him to see just as he first saw it, or he created the zebra himself when he first saw it"
No, no one created the zebra, no nothing created the zebra, and maybe yes, the zebra had always existed for some time before the person saw it. Why can't the zebra be there, because it's there? Alright, this sounds like a fallacy, circular reasoning as said before. But think of it, why can't it be there because it's there. Nothing created it, it's there, because it's there. As in the case of God, He is just there, nothing created, it's there because it's there.
But if God is not there because it's there, then something had to create it, and who created the creator of god? Go up the line and you end up wanting. Zebra is there, because it's like God. It's there because it's there. Alpha and Omega.
There is no evidence for the existence of god(s). But hypothetically if a god(s) exist, based on currently available evidence such a god(s) would not be any god in any modern religion, it would be a deistic god(s) that make the universe in such a way that every thing happens naturally or hide its existence by planting evidence that every thing happens naturally. Such a god(s) can not be proven or disproven scientifically but logic still apples. Logically, if a creature with the power to create and possibly even shape a universe create a universe but not interfere in it? And why would it create the universe? It could be a scientists, perhaps it created our universe to better understand the formation of its universe. But would that be a god? No, it would have the technology and the right laws of physics to create our universe. Perhaps where and accident and it doesn't care about us. But that doesn't mean its a god, it just mean it has the ability (weather that be technological or some something related to the physics of its universe. Then theres the idea that god isn't even sentient but thats not a god ether.
Any way you think about it, deism doesn't work. In most the god isn't even a god as god is defined (in exception to defining a god as a creator of the universe).
Empirically, the only possible god(s) is a deistic one and logically, deism dose not work. Thus (in my opinion) there is no god or gods.
Well god could be an energy based life form capable of organizing its own thought...a being made out of almost pure energy, like the atom like creatures in Metroid Prime, except like much, much way more complex. Imagine like a google of those creatures, the size of a cell, and only a bit of organic materiel as the Julian system, which dynamically organizes its "brain" and this creature, always existed, created time and the universe simply by existing, and its brain dynamically adjusts to its environment, so on Earth it would take on the persona of the dominant species. (Yes I am making this up as I go along.)
EDIT: I read what you wrote Indi, and it is some good stuff as usual. Give me some days to disprove mathmatically your ontalogical argument.
Attempt 3:
1.) God is that thing which is greater than everything else in the universe.
You cannot, CANNOT combine abstract, unproven ideas and real science/facts in an ontalogical argument.
2.) Any thing that exists is greater than any thing that does not exist.
3.) Therefore, God must exist.
The ontalogical argument has been corrupted into a mythical ontalogical argument. It is now understood that the statement "God must exist" is relative to the argument. "God must exist" is now only an idea. | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
What miracles has God done for you? Don't say anything stupid, like "He made the gas prices lower."
I must warn you, I am an atheist and will attempt to shoot down whatever you say. |
The miracle is the Qur'an. lol.
No, but seriously, he Qur'an has many Scientific miracles that would appea to a freethinking Atheist like yourself. There is nothing in the Qur'an that contradicts Modern Science. If you want an example, ask.
I await your reply..... | YushuaMalik wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | What miracles has God done for you? Don't say anything stupid, like "He made the gas prices lower."
I must warn you, I am an atheist and will attempt to shoot down whatever you say. |
The miracle is the Qur'an. lol.
No, but seriously, he Qur'an has many Scientific miracles that would appea to a freethinking Atheist like yourself. There is nothing in the Qur'an that contradicts Modern Science. If you want an example, ask.
I await your reply..... |
More than one proof of the Splitting of the Moon. | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| YushuaMalik wrote: | | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | What miracles has God done for you? Don't say anything stupid, like "He made the gas prices lower."
I must warn you, I am an atheist and will attempt to shoot down whatever you say. |
The miracle is the Qur'an. lol.
No, but seriously, he Qur'an has many Scientific miracles that would appea to a freethinking Atheist like yourself. There is nothing in the Qur'an that contradicts Modern Science. If you want an example, ask.
I await your reply..... |
More than one proof of the Splitting of the Moon. |
How about the 7 layers in the Qur'an? I could do something about that in future time.So far from my experience with the 7 layer burrito (Taco Bell=good), it has been always ethereal. What are the 7 layers of the Quran?
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| EDIT: I read what you wrote Indi, and it is some good stuff as usual. Give me some days to disprove mathmatically your ontalogical argument. |
Once again, this isn't my ontological argument. ^_^ i know it's wrong already - the problem is that the reason why it's wrong is very complex. i don't know what mathematics has to do with any of this, though.
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
Attempt 3:
1.) God is that thing which is greater than everything else in the universe.
You cannot, CANNOT combine abstract, unproven ideas and real science/facts in an ontalogical argument.
2.) Any thing that exists is greater than any thing that does not exist.
3.) Therefore, God must exist.
The ontalogical argument has been corrupted into a mythical ontalogical argument. It is now understood that the statement "God must exist" is relative to the argument. "God must exist" is now only an idea. |
i'm not sure what real science/facts are being used here. This is an a priori argument. It shouldn't have anything to do with any real world observations. It should be based on pure reason. It shouldn't have anything to do with mythology either.
First we point out what God must be like, if he exists. Then we point out something about what it means to be greater, with respect to existence. And from that we conclude that if the both the premises are true, God must exist.
How do we know that the first premise is true? Because if God exists, and if he created the universe, then he must, by definition, be greater than the universe.
How do we know the second premise is true? Because anything that does not exist cannot be anything... it is a nothingness, and anything that is not nothing is greater than nothing.
See? No science, no myth. Just pure reason.uh... 
I don't know how much further I can go
with disproving that argument.
I thought I disproved it for sure,
I guess not? Anyway tell me, what is the answer?
How do you disprove that argument? What evidence of god is there?
Well..... supossing that the Big Bang theory is true, then i'ts amazing how every single atom combined with each other could make here on earth -and probably somewhere else on galaxy- that thing we call "life".
It's hard to believe it as a random process.
I'm agnostic by the way.
| polis wrote: |
What evidence of god is there?
Well..... supossing that the Big Bang theory is true, then i'ts amazing how every single atom combined with each other could make here on earth -and probably somewhere else on galaxy- that thing we call "life".
It's hard to believe it as a random process.
I'm agnostic by the way. |
Aren't agnostics atheists?
The thing about life is, if it doesn't exist it impossible to realize it exists. So its not that amazing, especially since we are imperfect and took billions of years to evolve into this...state. | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| polis wrote: | What evidence of god is there?
Well..... supossing that the Big Bang theory is true, then i'ts amazing how every single atom combined with each other could make here on earth -and probably somewhere else on galaxy- that thing we call "life".
It's hard to believe it as a random process.
I'm agnostic by the way. |
Aren't agnostics atheists?
The thing about life is, if it doesn't exist it impossible to realize it exists. So its not that amazing, especially since we are imperfect and took billions of years to evolve into this...state. |
No, agnostic people aren't religious nor atheist.
Doesn't matter if we are perfect or not, the point is that life does exist, and it's very amazing for me that it comes from a big explosion trowing countless number of atoms into the big space and mix them in such way so life is created (that count evolution of course).
If you say that life doesn't exist, then I probably won't go much further with this conversation, cus I just found it ridiculous. | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| So far from my experience with the 7 layer burrito (Taco Bell=good), it has been always ethereal. What are the 7 layers of the Quran? |
I have a lot of replies to make, but I will just make this quick reply.
"Allah is He Who Created seven firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends all things In (His) Knowledge. (The Noble Quran, 65:12)"
According to Noble Verse 65:12 above, Allah Almighty created 7 Heavens for form the universe. The new scientific discovery had revealed to us that the earth that we currently live on today is also formed from seven layers. The very bottom layer contains most of the uranium and potonium and all the materials that we need to create nuclear weapons and energy. Noble Verse 65:12 above does indeed say that the earth was created with seven layers.
The "...seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number..." means that GOD Created 7 different Heavens or Universes or Galaxies (name it as you wish), and 7 earths and seven properties for our earth (as it has been scientifically proven below with the 7 inner layers and 7 atmospheric layers), and most possibly 7 properties of the remaining 6 earths. The "and of the earth a similar number" means that GOD Created the 7 earths with the same properties and qualities. The number "seven" Sign in the Noble Quran is the Miraculous Sign for all of the Earths that GOD Created along with our Mother Earth.
One fact about the universe revealed in the verses of the Qur'an is that the sky is made up of seven layers.
"It is He Who created everything on the earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things." (The Qur'an, 2:29)
"Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke. In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate." (The Qur'an, 41:12)
The word "heavens", which appears in many verses in the Qur'an, is used to refer to the sky above the Earth, as well as the entire universe. Given this meaning of the word, it is seen that the Earth's sky, or the atmosphere, is made up of seven layers.
Indeed, today it is known that the world's atmosphere consists of different layers that lie on top of each other. Furthermore, it consists, just as is described in the Qur'an, of exactly seven layers. In a scientific source, the subject is described as follows:
Scientists have found that the atmosphere consists of several layers. The layers differ in such physical properties as pressure and the types of gasses. The layer of the atmosphere closest to Earth is called the TROPOSPHERE. It contains about 90% of the total mass of the atmosphere. The layer above the troposphere is called the STRATOSPHERE. The OZONE LAYER is the part of the stratosphere where absorption of ultraviolet rays occurs. The layer above the stratosphere is called the MESOSPHERE. The THERMOSPHERE lies above the mesosphere. The ionized gases form a layer within the thermosphere called the IONOSPHERE. The outermost part of Earth's atmosphere extends from about 480 km out to 960 km. This part is called the EXOSPHERE. (Carolyn Sheets, Robert Gardner, Samuel F. Howe; General Science, Allyn and Bacon Inc. Newton, Massachusetts, 1985, s. 319-322)
If we count the number of layers cited in this source, we see that the atmosphere consists of exactly seven layers, just as stated in the verse.
1. Troposphere
2. Stratosphere
3. Ozonosphere
4. Mesosphere
5. Thermosphere
6. Ionosphere
7. Exosphere
Another important miracle on this subject is mentioned in the statement "(He) revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate.", in verse 12 of Sura Fussilet. In other words, in the verse, God states that He assigned each heaven its own duty. Truly, as seen in previous chapters, each one of these layers has vital duties for the benefit of human kind and all other living things on the Earth. Each layer has a particular function, ranging from forming rain to preventing harmful rays, from reflecting radio waves, to averting the harmful effects of meteors.
One of these functions, for example, is stated in a scientific source as follows:
Earth's atmosphere has 7 layers. The lowest layer is called troposphere. Rain, snow and wind only take place in the troposphere.
CONCLUSION:
It is a great miracle that these facts, which could not possibly be discovered without the technology of the 20th century, were explicitly stated by the Qur'an 1,400 years ago. | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| polis wrote: | What evidence of god is there?
Well..... supossing that the Big Bang theory is true, then i'ts amazing how every single atom combined with each other could make here on earth -and probably somewhere else on galaxy- that thing we call "life".
It's hard to believe it as a random process.
I'm agnostic by the way. |
Aren't agnostics atheists?
The thing about life is, if it doesn't exist it impossible to realize it exists. So its not that amazing, especially since we are imperfect and took billions of years to evolve into this...state. |
No, they believe it is not possible to know if a God exists or not, that doesn't make them Atheists. | YushuaMalik wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | polis wrote: | What evidence of god is there?
Well..... supossing that the Big Bang theory is true, then i'ts amazing how every single atom combined with each other could make here on earth -and probably somewhere else on galaxy- that thing we call "life".
It's hard to believe it as a random process.
I'm agnostic by the way. |
Aren't agnostics atheists?
The thing about life is, if it doesn't exist it impossible to realize it exists. So its not that amazing, especially since we are imperfect and took billions of years to evolve into this...state. |
No, they believe it is not possible to know if a God exists or not, that doesn't make them Atheists. |
Exactly 
| YushuaMalik wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | polis wrote: | What evidence of god is there?
Well..... supossing that the Big Bang theory is true, then i'ts amazing how every single atom combined with each other could make here on earth -and probably somewhere else on galaxy- that thing we call "life".
It's hard to believe it as a random process.
I'm agnostic by the way. |
Aren't agnostics atheists?
The thing about life is, if it doesn't exist it impossible to realize it exists. So its not that amazing, especially since we are imperfect and took billions of years to evolve into this...state. |
No, they believe it is not possible to know if a God exists or not, that doesn't make them Atheists. |
Ah. Now I know I'm half agnostic and half atheist.
| YushuaMalik wrote: |
| It is a great miracle that these facts, which could not possibly be discovered without the technology of the 20th century, were explicitly stated by the Qur'an 1,400 years ago. |
Ah! Impressive miracle, but sad, the Qu'Ran wasn't being specific, nothing was specific, only the number 7 was repeated over and over again. What can that prove? | JinTenshi wrote: |
| YushuaMalik wrote: | | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | polis wrote: | What evidence of god is there?
Well..... supossing that the Big Bang theory is true, then i'ts amazing how every single atom combined with each other could make here on earth -and probably somewhere else on galaxy- that thing we call "life".
It's hard to believe it as a random process.
I'm agnostic by the way. |
Aren't agnostics atheists?
The thing about life is, if it doesn't exist it impossible to realize it exists. So its not that amazing, especially since we are imperfect and took billions of years to evolve into this...state. |
No, they believe it is not possible to know if a God exists or not, that doesn't make them Atheists. |
Ah. Now I know I'm half agnostic and half atheist.
| YushuaMalik wrote: | | It is a great miracle that these facts, which could not possibly be discovered without the technology of the 20th century, were explicitly stated by the Qur'an 1,400 years ago. |
Ah! Impressive miracle, but sad, the Qu'Ran wasn't being specific, nothing was specific, only the number 7 was repeated over and over again. What can that prove? |
well, Bungie secretly puts the number 7 in all their games, to an average person they would not know it, but if you research you find out it is true. Same as for the Quran. I will research the layers of the atmosphere though to make sure it is true. | polis wrote: |
What evidence of god is there?
Well..... supossing that the Big Bang theory is true, then i'ts amazing how every single atom combined with each other could make here on earth -and probably somewhere else on galaxy- that thing we call "life".
It's hard to believe it as a random process.
I'm agnostic by the way. |
Don't confuse improbable wit imposable. Even if the odd of live forming are 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000, with the amount of stars and galaxy out there, there would be billions of civilisations out there.The atmosphere does indeed have 5-8 layers. It "officially" has 7. Is there a way they could have calculated this millenia ago?
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
uh... I don't know how much further I can go
with disproving that argument.
I thought I disproved it for sure,
I guess not? Anyway tell me, what is the answer?
How do you disprove that argument? |
i warned you that it wasn't going to be easy. ^_^; This argument vexed philosophers for centuries. It's easy to show that it's weird, it's hard to figure out why.
In order to figure out what is wrong with the argument, you have to understand what it means to talk about existence. There are two problems with that argument, both related.
The first is the commonly taught one: existence is not a property. The English language fools you (most languages do) in the way it lets you talk about existence in the same way as other properties - as something that a thing can either have or not have. Observe: think about a shape. Now, if i tell you that the shape is a sphere, you have learned something new about the shape. If i tell you that the shape is red, you have learned something else new about the shape. Colour and form are both properties in the way we commonly understand them. Now, if i told you that the shape existed, i haven't given you any new information about the shape. All i have done is taken the shape, with all of its properties (including colour and form), and brought them out of the hypothetical and into the real. In fact, if the shape did not exist, then it could not have colour or form. Things that exist do not need to have colour or form... a technical plan for a machine design has neither, a sentence has neither, yet both can exist. Existence is different from properties then, and it is a mistake to talk about it in the same way as other properties, like that argument does.
The other is that the argument is circular if it's true... and just fine if it's false. Why? Look at the first line: "God is that thing which is greater than everything else in the universe." What is wrong with that? Well, how can God "be" anything without first "being". The statement "God is ______" cannot be true if God does not exist, because a non-existent thing cannot be anything or have anything... it doesn't exist. If God does exist, then that statement can be true... but then the argument is circular, because the first premise contains the conclusion, which makes the argument invalid. But if God does not exist, then the first premise must be false (which makes the argument invalid).
This is a fundamental change in most people's thinking. It means that the statement "Mr. Spock has pointed ears" is false. Most people would say, "Wait a minute! Mr. Spock does have pointed ears, so that statement isn't false," but think about it... Mr. Spock doesn't exist... how can he "have" anything? Non-existent entities do not have ears of any kind... or anything. In fact, you cannot make any true positive statements about a non-existent entity at all. You can say "In Star Trek, Mr. Spock has pointed ears," but that's a statement about Star Trek, not Mr. Spock.
Complicated stuff, and still being debated by philosophers as we speak. In fact, a professional philosopher friend of mine is currently engaged in attempting to find a way to make statements like "Mr. Spock has pointed ears" true but statements like "Mr. Spock has horns" false. This is something that is still being actively worked on, but the current state of the art has it so that the ontological argument is false.
| JinTenshi wrote: |
| Ah. Now I know I'm half agnostic and half atheist. |
You can't be "half" either of those things. Either you're atheist, or you're theist... there is no "half-way". Either you're agnostic or you're not.
You can be either an atheist or an agnostic, both of them or neither. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| polis wrote: | What evidence of god is there?
Well..... supossing that the Big Bang theory is true, then i'ts amazing how every single atom combined with each other could make here on earth -and probably somewhere else on galaxy- that thing we call "life".
It's hard to believe it as a random process.
I'm agnostic by the way. |
Don't confuse improbable wit imposable. Even if the odd of live forming are 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000, with the amount of stars and galaxy out there, there would be billions of civilisations out there. |
1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000? Lol, im pretty sure that is A LOT more than that (and considering the size of universe of course) | JinTenshi wrote: |
| Ah! Impressive miracle, but sad, the Qu'Ran wasn't being specific, nothing was specific, only the number 7 was repeated over and over again. What can that prove? |
Well, it wasn't said over and over again, as you say. And this is just one of the MANY signs of the Qur'an.
The Qur'an is not a book of science, but signs. So it is not going to go indept about the science it reveals. | YushuaMalik wrote: |
| JinTenshi wrote: | | Ah! Impressive miracle, but sad, the Qu'Ran wasn't being specific, nothing was specific, only the number 7 was repeated over and over again. What can that prove? |
Well, it wasn't said over and over again, as you say. And this is just one of the MANY signs of the Qur'an.
The Qur'an is not a book of science, but signs. So it is not going to go indept about the science it reveals. |
Giving generalised information does not prove intelligence. And in fact proves nothing much.
| Indi wrote: |
You can't be "half" either of those things. Either you're atheist, or you're theist... there is no "half-way". Either you're agnostic or you're not.
You can be either an atheist or an agnostic, both of them or neither. |
Then I think I'm atheist, a useless one at that. Haha. | JinTenshi wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | You can't be "half" either of those things. Either you're atheist, or you're theist... there is no "half-way". Either you're agnostic or you're not.
You can be either an atheist or an agnostic, both of them or neither. |
Then I think I'm atheist, a useless one at that. Haha. |
A useful atheist? i don't think there's any such thing.
i should make a flowchart to help people in figuring out where they stand theologically, if they care. There's a lot of misinformation floating around, and too many people think that there's some kind spectrum of belief with rabid theist on one side, rabid atheist on the other, and agnostic in the middle. | Indi wrote: |
| JinTenshi wrote: | | Indi wrote: | You can't be "half" either of those things. Either you're atheist, or you're theist... there is no "half-way". Either you're agnostic or you're not.
You can be either an atheist or an agnostic, both of them or neither. |
Then I think I'm atheist, a useless one at that. Haha. |
A useful atheist? i don't think there's any such thing.
i should make a flowchart to help people in figuring out where they stand theologically, if they care. There's a lot of misinformation floating around, and too many people think that there's some kind spectrum of belief with rabid theist on one side, rabid atheist on the other, and agnostic in the middle. |
Indi, what religion are you? And in the very first 10 pages of the Quran, it says Allah made the 7 heavens. And about that ontalogical argument, I think I learned about that stuff in 6th grade, and then totally forgot about it.
The proof of God for me is simple. It is irrational and illogical to believe that there is no higher power. To me, it makes much more sense to believe that someone/something created this universe than that everything happened by mere chance.
I'm sure many of you people have heard my watch analogy, but it is my major proof of God (for myself). So if you have heard it, skip the next part
Take a watch and take it apart. You're left with gears, levers, the watch face, minute and hour and seconds hands, etc.
Take the universe apart. You're left with gravity, orbits, stars, asteroids, planets, food webs, photosynthesis, and countless other things.
Throw the watch pieces into the air. What are the chances that the watch lands completely assembled and working? Very little, if any chance.
Throw the pieces of the universe in the air. What are the chances that the universe landed completely assembled and working? Very little, if any chance.
What makes sense is that someone sat down and designed, then crated the watch specifically to serve a purpose. Much like Someone sat down and designed the universe and created it to serve a purpose.
I can't fathom this happening by accident. That makes absolutely no sense. I could brake down your argument and show you the problems but inted I'll ask, why do you think God acks they way you beleves (the christan idea) insted of say a deistic view (which fits the avalable evedence better).
Yep...I'll agree with your logic as soon as you throw the universe up into the air...
| Quote: |
| What evidence of god is there? |
None
