God does exist.

[MarcAC]

Views - for French

"In my opinionated view - the more man discovers about science - the less atheists there will be."

You realize even this hypothesis is not happening. You realize the number of Thiests has declined over the past 300 years? Why would that declention change?

This directly says that there will be more and more evidence for god. This implys that there is evidence for god. Why haven't we found any, hmm maybe it doesn't exist....

What has really happened over the past 300 years? Discovery upon discovery... upon discovery upon discovery. That's the basic history of modern science as we know it. 300 years? Right now the more we discovery the more we find gaps in theories and when you plug em there appears two more and it goes on. Science is very fragmented - no coherence - they are now abridging the rift between the very large and the very small. And we don't even know what Dark Matter or Dark Energy is. We just know what it seems to be doing and we give it a name.

It doesn't say there will be more of the evidence that you require to 'prove God's existence'. It simply implies that there will be less 'evidence' that you can use to refute it. As if you are using any evidence now.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Avatar
if I got 1$ for every religious crackpot reported...

I hope this isn't all there is to 5000+ posts. Yikes.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Cris
That’s a foolish idea. My very first post here 3 years ago specifically showed why I felt that idea was wrong.

Oh i forgot, you have an equally foolish idea of the universe being infinate.
Same difference.

The idea of gods was created to provide explanations of things that at the time could not be explained.

You people keep saying that, but i have yet to see any evidence of this.

We now have science that helps us explain things. We no longer need to create imaginary super beings.

Oh yippee, everything came out of nothing and the universe maintains itself, blah, blah, blah....

You should place the prefix "modern" in front of "science."

I do understand very well – I am arguing against the imaginative fantasies of theists.

No, you're arguing because you have a deep-seated dislike of things spiritual.

Sorry I forgot, you don’t understand science yet do you?

I understand science pretty well, well enough to know that the theory of evolution is nothing but a trick, the start of the next institutionalised religion.

Try it sometime; it’ll help you understand where you are going wrong.

An unproked personal attack eh?
Very rational.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

Oh i forgot, you have an equally foolish idea of the universe being infinate.
Same difference.

And an infinite invisible undetectable super person is somehow less foolish???

The idea of gods was created to provide explanations of things that at the time could not be explained.

You people keep saying that, but i have yet to see any evidence of this.

You don’t have to, it’s the default conclusion in the absence of theists being able to show anything of substance.

Oh yippee, everything came out of nothing and the universe maintains itself, blah, blah, blah....

Did you forget about the concept of infinity AGAIN? After all, you insist on an infinite superbeing, so at least you feel something infinite can exist.

I understand science pretty well, well enough to know that the theory of evolution is nothing but a trick, the start of the next institutionalised religion.

That is a perfect demonstration that you do not comprehend the principles of science.

Try it sometime; it’ll help you understand where you are going wrong.

An unproked personal attack eh?
Very rational.

No, just an objective observation, and genuine advice. I truly believe you cannot think clearly. Some attention to the principles of logic would help you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Cris
I truly believe you cannot think clearly.

So is asking someone to prove they were born, being told yes because the person is alive, and then asking them, can they prove it 100 years after they are dead, an example of clear thinking?

Some attention to the principles of logic would help you.

Well judging by your so-called clear thinking, above, it hasn't helped you.

Remember thinking you are intelligent and being intelligent are two different things.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[inspector]

"That is a perfect demonstration that you do not comprehend the principles of science."
---------------------------------------

Christopher,

Are you presupposing that a Christian's alleged ignorance of science invalidates any of our arguments? I guess I could presuppose that your ignorance of Christianity negates your ability to disprove God, thereby forcing you to arrive at erroneous conclusions regarding His existence. Logic is a very slippery slope for an atheist to reside on when debating the existence of God.

><>

 

[MarcAC]

APPLAUDS INSPECTOR

You deserve your accolade.

 

[Vienna]

APPLAUDS INSPECTOR

I second your accolade.

 

[(Q)]

Logic is a very slippery slope for an atheist to reside on when debating the existence of God.

Good point. Since the existence of gods is a completely irrational and illogical concept, one can fair as well using logic to debate their existence while comparatively debating the existence of purple dragons or the tooth fairy.
In other words, if you fail to comprehend the logical, then the illogical will always be your master.

 

[Raithere]

Re: Logic?

Originally posted by MarcAC
My point about the dimensions was that what seems 'illogical' to us in these 4 might - in fact will - seem 'logical' from another perspective - be it 6 or 10 or 1,000,000 - and I use logic here like the athesists here use it.

Logic is consistent. What you really mean is 'common sense' which often collapses when knew understanding is gained. Thus the 'common sense' apprehension of a flat, unmoving Earth and a Sun that traverses the sky gives way to the Newtonian movement of planets.

For example; 'Since God created the universe and he knows what will happen then we have no free wil and so he can't exist' - I have to state how naive I think it sounds and looks and makes the people who say it look. If you are to argue like that then you should argue that if I pack 10 spheres in a space in my 4 dimensions then there is no way I can pack 15 spheres in that same space in 5 dimensions. And as math and logic would have it, we can!

Actually, I believe that the omniscience vs free-will argument invokes a modal fallacy. But I do find that it would mean that either the omniscient being unchanging or unable to change the Universe (it cannot actively change the universe).

Stuff you consider impossible from your perspective can be possible from another perspective. It is narrow minded to try to refute God's existence by arguing from what you can see - God exists above what you can see. It is even better [and a WHOOOOLLE LOT SMARTER] to take an agnostic stance - not that I support it.

Most atheists take the weak position, which is not a negation of God's existence but merely an acknowledgement that there's no reason to believe God exists. A subtle but important difference. In this sense I agree with the agnostic perspective... except where the definition of God being used is self-refuting. But I do not find that your attempt to escape the constraints of logic are valid.

And again I say as we come to know more about the universe the more we realise we do not know about the universe. There are many gaps to be filled - no matter how small we THINK they are with our puny knowledge the point remains there are gaps - and they are VERY difficult to fill.

It depends upon what we mean by small. The unknown areas are rather intrinsic as applies to philosophy and an ultimate understanding of the nature of reality. However, what we do find is that the common experiences (rain, life, lightning, comets, stars, etc) are entirely natural... it is in this sense that I find that this 'god of the gaps' argument diminishes the concept of God or makes God more remote. This is why I find the pan/cosmo-theistic paradigm more appropriate. Not that I don't find these somewhat problematic but that's another discussion.

~Raithere

 

[Cris]

Inspector,

Are you presupposing that a Christian's alleged ignorance of science invalidates any of our arguments?

If an argument is allegedly based on science but the science has been misunderstood, then what conclusion would you draw?

I guess I could presuppose that your ignorance of Christianity negates your ability to disprove God, thereby forcing you to arrive at erroneous conclusions regarding His existence.

Perhaps, if you can show that I am ignorant of the specifics concerning a particular disproof. Did you have something in mind? Your statement appears rhetorical.

Logic is a very slippery slope for an atheist to reside on when debating the existence of God.

The premises of logic depend entirely on factual evidence. There are no facts that support the existence of gods. The logic is extremely easy for anyone to see.

Cris

PS. I am sure you were addressing me – but who is Christopher?

 

[Cris]

Jan,

So is asking someone to prove they were born, being told yes because the person is alive, and then asking them, can they prove it 100 years after they are dead, an example of clear thinking?

In the context of historical documents it was relevant. You appear to have misunderstood that entire discussion as well.

Remember thinking you are intelligent and being intelligent are two different things.

I don’t think of myself as being particularly intelligent. So what was the point of that remark?

 

[Adam]

For the rationally challenged...

Are you presupposing that a Christian's alleged ignorance of science invalidates any of our arguments?

A theist's lack of comprehension of science and logic in general does indeed invalidate their claims when those claims can not at all be supported by science or logic. For example the old Catholic church position that the Sun orbits the Earth, that Earth is the centre of the universe. And the common theist belief that evolution can not be supported by evidence. These thoroughly false claims can not be supported rationally. Arguments against the evidence for evolution, for example, (at least those which have been brought up at Sciforums) are completely invalid.

I guess I could presuppose that your ignorance of Christianity negates your ability to disprove God, thereby forcing you to arrive at erroneous conclusions regarding His existence.

Disprove a supersition which, by its very nature, holds no water? How can anyone disprove such a superstition when all it is based on is: "God is too spooky and mysterious for mortals to ever know"? There is nothing to disprove. You have nothing. Get something (which you can't), then it can be disproven. But thus far you have nothing.

Logic is a very slippery slope for an atheist to reside on when debating the existence of God.

No, it's not a slippery slope at all. Please explain how it could possibly be a slippery slope? Or are you just tossing out platitudes? The logic is simple: There is no evidence for that particular fairy tale. That's all one needs. The logic is sound. Go research the word "logic".

 

[MarcAC]

Logic???

Originally posted by Raithere
Logic is consistent. What you really mean is 'common sense' which often collapses when knew understanding is gained. Thus the 'common sense' apprehension of a flat, unmoving Earth and a Sun that traverses the sky gives way to the Newtonian movement of planets.

Actually, I believe that the omniscience vs free-will argument invokes a modal fallacy. But I do find that it would mean that either the omniscient being unchanging or unable to change the Universe (it cannot actively change the universe).

Most atheists take the weak position, which is not a negation of God's existence but merely an acknowledgement that there's no reason to believe God exists. A subtle but important difference. In this sense I agree with the agnostic perspective... except where the definition of God being used is self-refuting. But I do not find that your attempt to escape the constraints of logic are valid.

It depends upon what we mean by small. The unknown areas are rather intrinsic as applies to philosophy and an ultimate understanding of the nature of reality. However, what we do find is that the common experiences (rain, life, lightning, comets, stars, etc) are entirely natural... it is in this sense that I find that this 'god of the gaps' argument diminishes the concept of God or makes God more remote. This is why I find the pan/cosmo-theistic paradigm more appropriate. Not that I don't find these somewhat problematic but that's another discussion.

~Raithere

Logic is consistent? Logic originated from common sense. Logic is entirely dependent on the facts which are known at that point in time... or the 'evidence' which is present. Logical reasoning has often led to paradoxes where you often have two outcomes. One premise being wrong Or there is just something TOOOOOOOTALLY NEW that you didn't know before. And thus I am to gather that logic didn't exist back when the sun moved around the earth and there were 'logical' arguments presented to support that. For example - If the earth revolved around the sun that would mean the stars would vary in size as we move closer and then farther away from them - they don't! - not that we can see anyway so guess what? - they move around us. They DIDN'T KNOW that the stars were so far away. OR If things fall towards the centre of the earth and the earth is supposed to be flat how come they don't start veering sideways after a while - hmmmm - maybe the earth is round and so they will always fall in a line perpendicular to the surface of the sphere of the earth and towards the sentre - well I guess the earth can't be flat then. Wow!

Please stop disrespecting my God by trying to use a protean human invention like... logic... to invalidate his existence.

God is always here for us, even if we don't want him here. Not to really diminish him like this but an anology can be the time dimension - we don't see it but we see it's effects.

 

[MarcAC]

For the rationally apt...

Originally posted by Adam
Disprove a supersition which, by its very nature, holds no water? How can anyone disprove such a superstition when all it is based on is: "God is too spooky and mysterious for mortals to ever know"? There is nothing to disprove. You have nothing. Get something (which you can't), then it can be disproven. But thus far you have nothing.


No, it's not a slippery slope at all. Please explain how it could possibly be a slippery slope? Or are you just tossing out platitudes? The logic is simple: There is no evidence for that particular fairy tale. That's all one needs. The logic is sound. Go research the word "logic".

Are you agnostic Adam? You sound like it.

Way back in the early 20th when the tau neutrino was hypothesised there was no evidence for it. As far as I know it has been proven to exist. Just an anology. But hey, those who seek pure evidence would have said in the early 20th that there is no such thing as a neutrino. Hey I can't see it. Can't feel it. It hardly interacts with anything. There is no EVIDENCE for it. So IT CAN'T BE THERE! Oh... oops it's there huh?

 

[Cris]

Marc,

The alternative to using logic is what? Illogic?

Logic is the most advanced and disciplined form of thinking we have been able to devise. To not use logic when making a decision is to allow considerable increased risk of error.

You appear to be saying you won’t use logic because it has made errors in the past. My point is that all the alternatives are much worse.

But the discipline of logic has been in the process of development for a long time, however, the primary basis of modern logic, I believe is still routed in the work by Aristotle (384 BCE).

But logic is limited to some extent since it depends heavily on factual evidence. But then this reflects reality. If facts are not available, as in the case for gods, then logic cannot reach a conclusion; or rather the logical conclusion is that a conclusion for or against a god cannot be drawn.

The theist then argues then that clearly logic is inadequate, and they reach a conclusion anyway. But what method of thinking has been used? If it isn’t logic then what? There is only one choice – illogic. And this is why many say that theism is irrational.

 

[Cris]

Marc,

There is no EVIDENCE for it. So IT CAN'[T BE THERE! Oh... oops it's there huh?

No. Scientists do not operate that way.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If evidence cannot be found then that doesn't mean the object doesn't exist. It means that one cannot know whether it exists or not.

 

[Cris]

Marc,

Please stop disrespecting my God by trying to use a protean human invention like... logic... to invalidate his existence.

What does protean mean in this context? I can’t figure out what you are trying to say here. I assume you are trying to say that logic is not appropriate. But I think I have answered that in an earlier post.

God is always here for us, even if we don't want him here.

That is just your opinion. If he doesn’t exist then there is nothing there to respect. And since no one in the history of mankind has shown he exists, at least no one that has made themselves known, then it feels kinda safe to assume he doesn’t exist and so no respect is really due. But that’s just my opinion as well.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Cris,

Omni benevolence creates a paradox because evil exists in a universe created by the same god with omnipotence.

Darkness is the mere absence of light, and darkness itself is an illusion. The same as with evil and good.

Omniscience creates a paradox with the claim of human free will.

It's also written that God knows the hearts of people...

 

[Frencheneesz]

Muzzleman:

"I dont, do you? I only believe in claims with proof, Im not delusional and believe in Giant purple squid monkey, aliens, atheism, and nature as chance, all these have one thing in common. THERE ARENT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM."

I was in no way CLAIMing anything. You are jumping conclusions from my simple quetion. In any case, there was a reason for this question. You keep telling me that there are billions of witnesses to god, and then you say there are millions alive today. I know for a fact that billions of witnesses HAVE NOT been documented. You can speculate all you want about witnesses.
IN ANY CASE, you say you disbelieve in aliens. May I ask why? There are millions of "witnesses" to aliens as to jesus or god or whatever. Therefore, your arguement is a falicy. You prove god with many "eyewitnesses" (I won't even go into trying to disprove it, it would not get anywhere), yet you disbelieve in aliens, which also have "eyewitness" evidence.

So, can we let that arguement pass, so we can move on to your next argument?

"Show me healing, supernatural/miracles documented in the name of tooth fairy. How many died for tooth fairy to verify its value?"

HA! You use myth, following, and radicalism to verify something!? That makes me laugh. Greek mythology is something you obviously don't belive in, yet there were millions of people who believed them and I'm sure some people that do now. I can see how a prophesy that noone will believe them could make greek myth believers look stupid in your eyes. In greek myth, there were many cases of supernatural things and "miricles" although the greeks had a slightly less pathetic view of their gods. They feared them, but had the idea that their gods were not perfect and had human qualities, whereas christians depict god as human yet say he is perfect yet there is plenty of undeserved suffering. In greek mythology any suffering would be for a findable reason.

Many people died for the greek gods, does this make the true?
Many people "witnessed" (believed in) greek gods; does this make the true?

Again can we move on from these hypocracies?

"AND U WONDER WHY I TYPE IN CAPS? BECAUSE YOU SEEM ILLITERATE!!! DO YOU GET THAT?"

You realize that talking in caps will not help illiterate people read, thats why me and cris think you are STUPID!! DO YOU GET THAT?!!!!

"AGAIN GOD IS ALL KNOWING, OMNISCIENCE, NOT ALL DOING TODAY AND TOMMORROW"

Ok I can see your point. DON'T fucking talk in caps ANYMORE though. I'm reading you idiotic arguments, muscleman, and I can understand your thinking. YET, I am trying to convince you that that way of thinking is a falicy. OK?

Ok, god knows what is going to happen. Therefore things ARE preordained. You can argue that god did not preordain things and I can accept that back arguement. BUT for god to KNOW that something will happen, SOMEBODY must have PREORDAINED it.

As you quoted, preordained means "1. To determine, decide, or establish in advance", correct? And if god KNOWS something in advance, is not it ESTABLISHED in god's mind before it happens? Its something to think about. For the other arguments you had I can safely say I disproved the validity of them, but this one is for you to think over.

"Quote the sentence where it says that, LOL, Im waiting"

I think most experts agree that the bible says that. I'm no expert and I have no time to bust out an internet bible and quote from it. Look it up and tell me if you find any date that people agree the bible tells that is more than a few thousand years old, for earth. K?