Arguments for and against the existence of God

[Sarkus]

I really cannot understand what the bad thing in having a God that created everything just right for us to live upon the earth.

Did I say it would be a bad thing?

I feel this to be the case. I have read many books and heard many speakers. The truth communicated in the word of God makes my heart get humble and my eyes shed tears. The language, ideas, arguments and challenges all come from the one who created Man and taught him how to speak. There is a sense of truth that cannot be matched by anything else. It is like the body testifies to His Glory. Praise the Lord.

Seems to be an appeal to emotion rather than any critical thought involved.

I'm not going to say that you shouldn't believe in God, nor that it is wrong. I don't have such a belief and can only make such comments as they would affect me. But what you are stating is no rational argument I can see for the existence of God.
If you are convinced - great. But you appear to have nothing to offer to convince anyone else as you seem to base your belief on nothing but emotion. You seem to argue from personal confidence and little else. And your confidence is not an argument I can accept.

 

[Yosef]

As I have said earlier evidence for God's existence is available. You need to consider all the data.

The word "Human being" appears 2 times in chapter 76 "Human being", in verses 1 & 2. The word Allah "God" appears 5 times in this chapter, in verses 6, 9, 11 and 30.

Despite the fact that the Arabic alphabet consists of 28 different letters we find that the two verses containing the occurrences of the word "Human being" in this chapter are made of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters. The 23 letters are:

( هـ ل ا ت ى ع ن س ح م د ر ك ش ذ و خ ق ط ف ج ب ص )​

At the same time the four verses containing the occurrences of the word Allah in this chapter are made also of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters. The 23 letters are:

( ع ي ن ا ش ر ب ل هـ د ف ج و ت م ط ك ز ق ذ ض س ح )​

Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. No one could have known this 1430 years ago except God Almighty - The Creator. I must mention that different species have different chromosome numbers (Hoopoe bird has, for example, as many as 63 chromosome pairs).

Moreover, the second verse in this chapter contains the second and last occurrence of the word "Human being" in the chapter. God says in this verse:

"Verily, We created man from a mingled clot, to try him; and we gave him hearing and sight."

- 46 verses in the Holy Quran containing the word "Human being" before this verse.

- 76 verses in the Holy Quran containing a word made of the Arabic root that makes the word "Human being" before this verse.

- 18 verses in the Holy Quran containing the word "(We) created" before this verse.

- 199 verses in the Holy Quran containing a word made of the Arabic root that makes the word "Create" before this verse.

Humans have 46 chromosomes, number 199 is the 46[sup]th[/sup] prime number in universe, chapter "Human being" is chapter 76 of the Holy Quran, 18 is equal to 9 x 2. The 9[sup]th[/sup] prime number in universe is number 23.

"And in what new discourse after this will they believe?" Source: Holy Quran - Emissaries 77:50

Tell me!

Peace

Data verified by readverse - Quran search engine

 

[Yosef]

Follow up for my previous post:

It looks like that the two verses in chapter "Human being" that contain the word "Created" (verses 2 and 28) are also made of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters (out of the 28 letters making the Arabic alphabet)! The 23 letters are:

( س ر ا ل ن ه ي ص ع ق م ط ب ج ف ش ت خ ح د و ث ذ )​

To summarize:

In chapter "Human being", the three verse sets containing the words "Allah", "Human being" and "Created" are made of three different sets of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters.

God created human beings. God is the only one who could have known that human beings have 23 chromosome pairs, 1430 years ago. Human chromosome number was discovered in the year 1955.

God says in the Holy Quran:

"(4) And the infidels say, "This Koran is a mere fraud of his own devising, and others have helped him with it, who had come hither by outrage and lie." (5) And they say, "Tales of the ancients that he hath put in writing! and they were dictated to him morn and even." (6) SAY: He hath sent it down who knoweth the secrets of the Heavens and of the Earth. He truly is the Gracious, the Merciful." Source: Holy Quran - The Criterion 25:4-6

I find it interesting but also alarming that God is revealing His limitless ability and intelligence in this manner. Many of the facts that are being discovered require modern computer technology (e.g. factorization of 165 digit numbers) and modern scientific research. Can it be that greater signs are going to appear in near future?

Why not accept the mercy of God, we all Muslims, Christians and Jews. God promises that "He has prepared for His good servants (the believers) that which no ho human eye has seen, and that which no human ear has heard (of) and that which no human heart thought (fantasized) about". (prophet saying - words dictated by God on Muhamamd's (pbuh) heart by arch angel Gabriel).

It makes much more sense that we are created by an all-knowing God than that we just had developed out of some soup (given time and random happenings).

 

[condelestat]

"The Good" and Evil

I believe in God but I don't think there is one right "religion". I believe God is omnipotent and all powerful. I believe in evolution but I think God made it happen. I believe in The Big Bang Theory but God did that too. To me God is life and creation and all that is good. God is "The Good". I believe God can appear to all races and walks of life in a way they can understand. I believe that all the religions that have the fundamentals of "The Good" are on the side of good. People that have racked up more good than evil in their existence go to heaven. "Heaven" is the source of good which powers the side of good. The good energy you have acuminated by being a good person is returned to "The Good" and use to create more life and influence more good.

I also believe that there is evil; and evil can oppose good. As the polar opposite of The Good; Evil destroys, corrupts, and consumes. "The Evil" can also appear to and influence all races and walks of life. I believe all actions and thoughts and beliefs that oppose "The Good" are on the side Evil. To me Evil has no sentient qualities. To me It's more of a natural phenomena. Chaotic to its core. It has no ambition, direction or design. It just is. I think of it more as an infection that alters and twists and feeds on anything it can scavenge. Evil does evil because it is evil. "Hell" is the source of evil and when a person that has been on the side of evil dies they surrender the evil energy they collected to hell and evil keeps on chugging along doing it's thing.

I believe in neutrality. For example nature kills and creates and can be manipulated by either side. People are neutral because we think and have the capacity for good or evil.

So when I hear people of different religions that I know are fundamentally good argue that "my God" is better or my religion is right and yours' is wrong. I chuckle on the inside and want to give them the CSI slap to the back of their head and say "They are both "The Good" you're both right in your own way. The way you can understand. So I can appreciate the holy scriptures of different religions and see a consistent commonality. They pretty much agree with each other. Just pick one and be true to it the best you can. Faith ....

I mean no offence to anyone. This is just how I see things work. I was brought up Christian by the way. My Brother is Muslim. No we did not get along. Not because of religion though. We both had bad tempers.

 

[IamJoseph]

Follow up for my previous post:

It looks like that the two verses in chapter "Human being" that contain the word "Created" (verses 2 and 28) are also made of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters (out of the 28 letters making the Arabic alphabet)! The 23 letters are:

( س ر ا ل ن ه ي ص ع ق م ط ب ج ف ش ت خ ح د و ث ذ )​

To summarize:

In chapter "Human being", the three verse sets containing the words "Allah", "Human being" and "Created" are made of three different sets of exactly 23 unique Arabic letters.

God created human beings. God is the only one who could have known that human beings have 23 chromosome pairs, 1430 years ago. Human chromosome number was discovered in the year 1955.

God says in the Holy Quran:

"(4) And the infidels say, "This Koran is a mere fraud of his own devising, and others have helped him with it, who had come hither by outrage and lie." (5) And they say, "Tales of the ancients that he hath put in writing! and they were dictated to him morn and even." (6) SAY: He hath sent it down who knoweth the secrets of the Heavens and of the Earth. He truly is the Gracious, the Merciful." Source: Holy Quran - The Criterion 25:4-6

I find it interesting but also alarming that God is revealing His limitless ability and intelligence in this manner. Many of the facts that are being discovered require modern computer technology (e.g. factorization of 165 digit numbers) and modern scientific research. Can it be that greater signs are going to appear in near future?

Why not accept the mercy of God, we all Muslims, Christians and Jews. God promises that "He has prepared for His good servants (the believers) that which no ho human eye has seen, and that which no human ear has heard (of) and that which no human heart thought (fantasized) about". (prophet saying - words dictated by God on Muhamamd's (pbuh) heart by arch angel Gabriel).

It makes much more sense that we are created by an all-knowing God than that we just had developed out of some soup (given time and random happenings).

Arabic wiritngs is new - 300 CE; Islam is a new kid on the block. Monotheism was introduced 4000 years ago. An infidel is one who conditions the Creator with a human messenger's name, and flaunts the Hebrew laws:

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE STRANGER AS THE INHABITANT.

ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINS [COMMITS A CRIME] IT SHALL PAY.

A martyr is one who forfeits his life before causing the death of an innocent person.

 

[IamJoseph]

There is no possible argument for a Creator from a scientific POV: name it?

There is only the emotive and legitimate factor of not being able to prove the Creator. But from a scientific premise, cause and effect [a fundamental scientific premise], a universe must have a universe maker - unless this is disproven or another equally sustainable premise can be offered. Otherwise all scientice laws goes south: a car manual does not prove there is no car maker - the reverse applies!

There is nothing wrong with our minds - the proof of a Creator is barred from our mind's wiring. This is why the Hebrew bible starts with the second alphabet and says GO FORTH - all other paths are barred. It is an ingenius design - else we would not be thinking about the Creator today in forum debates. The sound premise of science says there must be a creator - yet it is elusive - fostering an inexplicable anomoly on humans and science, one which will ever leave us tormented and chasing forever. Such is the true science of the thread's question.

 

[SnakeLord]

But from a scientific premise, cause and effect [a fundamental scientific premise], a universe must have a universe maker

This is not the case at all - indeed science knows of things that are uncaused. Of course if you want to stick to the notion that cause and effect means that the universe must have a maker, then the same principle must also mean that the maker has a maker [ad infinitum].

Regards,

 

[SnakeLord]

Jan

What are the "arguments against the existence of God"?

1: Argument from perfection:

1. That which is perfect has no desires or needs
2. A god is by definition perfect
3. A god by therefore has no desires or needs
4. Having no desires or needs results in no change of state.
5. Our existence negates the existence of a god.

To clarify: By being perfect, an entity has no desires or needs - both which actually refer to a need, (a desire is a need for mental/physical/spiritual satisfaction). By having no needs, (perfect), there is never a change in states - everything is already perfect as is. This is logically unarguable.

Interestingly, what this doesn't do is rule out the existence of the judeo-christian gods, all of whom are more needy than five year old schoolgirls. Hence the argument stands but Yhwh etc might still exist. But, by not being perfect, lose title of 'god'.

2: Arguments to show that 'free will' is a false concept/souls do not exist etc. I won't put the arguments here, they are lengthy. Non-existence of free will/souls negates typical god concepts.

There's countless more that I employ, but that's a starting point.

Regards,

[EDIT] There are also other arguments I use that don't necessarily show the non-existence of a god but instead concentrate on other aspects such as the worthlessness of such entities. For example (in short form):

1. The greater the need, the greater the attention
2. A god has absolutely no needs whatsoever
3. A god can only come last on any list - every human, by dint of having needs, should come before a god.

(3) of course includes yourself, which is precisely the reason you pray and worship. It is not for the benefit of a needless god, just yours. It is an entirely selfish endeavour.

 

[lightgigantic]

Jan



1: Argument from perfection:

1. That which is perfect has no desires or needs

why does desire render you imperfect?

I
2. A god is by definition perfect
3. A god by therefore has no desires or needs
4. Having no desires or needs results in no change of state.
5. Our existence negates the existence of a god.

To clarify: By being perfect, an entity has no desires or needs - both which actually refer to a need, (a desire is a need for mental/physical/spiritual satisfaction). By having no needs, (perfect), there is never a change in states - everything is already perfect as is. This is logically unarguable.

what is the necessity for god or perfection to have a (radically) unchanging state?

Interestingly, what this doesn't do is rule out the existence of the judeo-christian gods, all of whom are more needy than five year old schoolgirls. Hence the argument stands but Yhwh etc might still exist. But, by not being perfect, lose title of 'god'.

2: Arguments to show that 'free will' is a false concept/souls do not exist etc. I won't put the arguments here, they are lengthy. Non-existence of free will/souls negates typical god concepts.

the rebuttals are also quite lengthy
shall we call it a checkmate?

There's countless more that I employ, but that's a starting point.

Regards,

[EDIT] There are also other arguments I use that don't necessarily show the non-existence of a god but instead concentrate on other aspects such as the worthlessness of such entities. For example (in short form):

1. The greater the need, the greater the attention
2. A god has absolutely no needs whatsoever
3. A god can only come last on any list - every human, by dint of having needs, should come before a god.

not at all sure why you have suddenly hit on need/desire as being the cornerstone of imperfection.

(3) of course includes yourself, which is precisely the reason you pray and worship. It is not for the benefit of a needless god, just yours. It is an entirely selfish endeavour.

Its one thing to say god is needless. Another to say he has no desire ... and yet another to relegate need and desire to the realm of imperfection

 

[goliah]

I hate to make this thread difficult, but all arguments either for or against the existence of God may have become redundant. History now has it's first demonstrable PROOF for faith.

The first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged is now a reality. A teaching that delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition, that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable, direct cause and effect, evidence*based truth embodied in experience. For the first time in history, however unexpected, the world must contend with a claim to new revealed truth, a moral wisdom not of human intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully rational and justifiable belief!

Revolutionary stuff for those who can get their head around this change in the religious and faith paradigm. For anyone interested in joining the trials of this new moral tenet, to test and confirm the efficacy of this new truth claim, you'll have to work out the link from this longhand. www dot energon dot org dot uk

 

[NMSquirrel]

atheist converted to theism... 0
theist converted to atheism....0

there will be no consensus..
good luck with that.

 

[SnakeLord]

why does desire render you imperfect?

Was already explained.

what is the necessity for god or perfection to have a (radically) unchanging state?

1. I am unsure how or where "radically" fits into the question or discussion. Kindly clarify.

2. If the sole state of existence, (god), is perfect then any change of states negates that very statement.

the rebuttals are also quite lengthy
shall we call it a checkmate?

Rebuttal of what, I didn't even make my argument?

not at all sure why you have suddenly hit on need/desire as being the cornerstone of imperfection.

I am unsure how your above statement is relevant to my last argument. Kindly clarify.

 

[lightgigantic]

Was already explained.

where?
All you do is talk about how desire makes one imperfect with out really saying why or how.

1. I am unsure how or where "radically" fits into the question or discussion. Kindly clarify.

because you seem to suggest that even something as minute as changing one's mind about one's favorite ice cream warrants an essentially changed state of being

2. If the sole state of existence, (god), is perfect then any change of states negates that very statement.

how so?

Rebuttal of what, I didn't even make my argument?

Rebuttals of the arguments that you indicated as valid yet too lengthy to post of course

I am unsure how your above statement is relevant to my last argument. Kindly clarify.

You're simply posting a lot of things about an apparent connection between desire and imperfection or god and a necessary absence of desire without ever going into any detail about why this is the case

 

[SnakeLord]

where?

On my earlier post.

because you seem to suggest that even something as minute as changing one's mind about one's favorite ice cream warrants an essentially changed state of being

Strawman. Nobody is talking about people changing their minds with regards to anything like their favourite ice cream.

how so?

Let's say that you've just made a cake that is - undeniably - absolutely 100% perfect. It cannot possibly be improved upon, because it's perfect. When you then say 'ooh, I just want to add this to it', you've negated it's perfection.

The sole state of existence, (god), is undeniably absolutely 100% perfect. Any change in states is a negation of that earlier states perfection. Being perfect, such entity would have neither need nor desire, (which expresses a need), to change the current state unless such state wasn't perfect to begin with.

Rebuttals of the arguments that you indicated as valid yet too lengthy to post of course

If I didn' make any arguments, (which you agree I did not), what possible rebuttals can you be referring to?

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

On my earlier post.

like the bits where all you do is talk about how desire makes one imperfect with out really saying why or how?

Strawman. Nobody is talking about people changing their minds with regards to anything like their favourite ice cream.

you are however alluding to the changing nature for desire being a (radical) indication of change however

Let's say that you've just made a cake that is - undeniably - absolutely 100% perfect.

and also 100% bereft of consciousness

It cannot possibly be improved upon, because it's perfect. When you then say 'ooh, I just want to add this to it', you've negated it's perfection.

actually the perfection of the cake would be in the eyes of a conscious entity (since cakes aren't big on peer approval, no matter how well they are made)

The sole state of existence, (god), is undeniably absolutely 100% perfect. Any change in states is a negation of that earlier states perfection. Being perfect, such entity would have neither need nor desire, (which expresses a need), to change the current state unless such state wasn't perfect to begin with.

once again, it depends how much you want to drive home a radical definition of change.

If one describes ice cream as their favorite food, it hardly warrants a change if they vacillate from one flavor to the next.

Similarly, if god remains steadfast in creating, maintaining and annihilating the cosmic manifestation and all of its constituent elements (us included) and also in terms of goals (like for instance relieving the conditioned living entity from their ignorance and expanding the bliss of the liberated .. who in turn expand the bliss of god), it doesn't really warrant a radical change if the game plan gets tweaked a little

If I didn' make any arguments, (which you agree I did not), what possible rebuttals can you be referring to?

:shrug:

If you think its valid to decry a point by citing a vague indication of an argument it also stands that it can be refuted by a similarly vague rebuttal.

This, much like not sticking decorations up at Christmas time, is simply the rational approach

 

[SnakeLord]

like the bits where all you do is talk about how desire makes one imperfect with out really saying why or how?

No lightgigantic, the part where I explained that by dint of being 'perfect' it can be said that such entity has no needs. I further explained that a 'desire' actually reflects a need, (mental/physical/spiritual fulfillment).

you are however alluding to the changing nature for desire being a (radical) indication of change however

What? Kindly clarify what you're trying to say here. What "changing nature" are you talking about?

If one describes ice cream as their favorite food, it hardly warrants a change if they vacillate from one flavor to the next.

What? We know that humans do change from having one food or flavour to another due to ever changing needs. I am unsure how it's relevant here.

If you think its valid to decry a point by citing a vague indication of an argument

What? I said I had other arguments but won't put them here to which you claimed there were rebuttals to those arguments. What rebuttals? Can you link me to the rebuttals of the arguments I didn't make?

 

[AlexG]

The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy recieved not from its own carrier but from those around it, It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. the practical upshot of this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any language.


Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anhthing so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes like this : "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh that was easy" says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Thank you Monty Python.

 

[James R]

Thank you Monty Python.

Douglas Adams, actually.

 

[AlexG]

Douglas Adams, actually.

Damn, you're right. For some reason, I was thinking of the galaxy song when I said Python.

 

[wynn]

like the bits where all you do is talk about how desire makes one imperfect with out really saying why or how?
...
you are however alluding to the changing nature for desire being a (radical) indication of change however
...
If one describes ice cream as their favorite food, it hardly warrants a change if they vacillate from one flavor to the next.

Similarly, if god remains steadfast in creating, maintaining and annihilating the cosmic manifestation and all of its constituent elements (us included) and also in terms of goals (like for instance relieving the conditioned living entity from their ignorance and expanding the bliss of the liberated .. who in turn expand the bliss of god), it doesn't really warrant a radical change if the game plan gets tweaked a little

Western philosophy and theology have struggled with notions of perfection for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection#Ontology_and_theology

Then there is the notion of God's immutability: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/immutability/ - a line of maddening, if logical, conclusions.

In also comes whether God is free or not: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-freedom/ ...

And further, does God feel with us or not?

Charles Hartshorne, for instance, has argued that while certain forms of independence are admirable others are not. “One should not simply agree to every whim of [one's] child,” for example, “but neither should one try to act and think and feel just as one would have acted or thought or felt had the child's joy been sorrow, or her sorrow joy…” Nor is there anything admirable about a happiness that is unaffected by the sorrows of others. We don't admire people who “can be equally happy and serene and joyous regardless of how men and women suffer around” them. (Hartshorne: 43–44) Human sympathies are necessarily limited, of course. But a perfect being would be maximally responsive to the joys and sufferings of other. If it is, it could not be impassible.

Classical Christian theology provides several attempts to reconcile God's compassion with his impassibility. Thus, Anselm argued that while God acts as if he were compassionate, he does not experience compassion. “For when You look upon us in our misery it is we who feel the effect of Your mercy, but You do not experience the feeling. Therefore you are both merciful because You save the sorrowful and pardon sinners against You; and You are not merciful because You do not experience any feeling of compassion for misery.” (Anselm: chapter viii) This seems unsatisfactory, however, for a compassion without feeling isn't real compassion. A recognition of this may have led Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas to offer their own, rather different, solutions.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

The conversation you are having here prompted me to start two threads

What is the necessity for god or perfection to have a (radically) unchanging state?

Are need and desire cornerstones of imperfection?

These things may seem dry and abstract, yet they are important. When I sit down to chant, or pray, I have to have some idea who it is I am addressing, and what this being is like - does He feel with me? Is He like this

or this

with all the coldness of marble? Or does He blink? Or how is that?