To start off on a debate since it is allowed, I am going to go with one of the main subjects that appear in most people's discussions. Is God real?
RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is fake". Tell WHY you think God is fake, and use science to back it up if you have to. If you want to say "God is real", then the same goes for you. If you are going to use sources, then make sure they are credible, not just from someones blog (unless they source on that, and THAT source is credible).
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
STARTING ARGUMENT:
God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.).
That still has nothing to do with what I was saying.
I was saying that your grasping for a "proof of God" means that your faith in God is weak. Real christians only need faith. They don't need any kind of "proof", and they'd look down on anybody trying to create such a proof for not having enough faith.
I was saying that your grasping for a "proof of God" means that your faith in God is weak.Huh? Who says that I need proof?!? Read the website, it says that NO ONE needs proof that God exists.
If you don't need it, why do you spend so much time and effort on it?
If you don't need it, why do you spend so much time and effort on it?Because I am commanded to 'give a reason for the hope that I have,' (1 Peter 3:15) and to 'demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor 10:5)
If the "reason for the hope that you have" is a simple logical argument, that's once again a pretty weak faith.
And if you convert somebody with a logical argument, they won't have a real faith either, and they will be just as bad christians as you.
If the "reason for the hope that you have" is a simple logical argument, that's once again a pretty weak faith.Um, it has NOTHING to do with my faith. It has lots to do with yours, however.
And if you convert somebody with a logical argument, they won't have a real faith either, and they will be just as bad christians as you.Read the site again, people cannot convert people, and it ain't my job. Plus anyone who comes to faith in God via a logical argument does not come to faith in the REAL God, because that would indicate that reason and logic DO NOT depend ENIRELY on God. And buddy, I dodn't need you to tell me that I am a bad Christian, I can figure that out on my own :-)
> You aren't the only person running from God who engages me in conversation, sadly you are like most who avoid MY questions.
Unlike you, I haven't failed to answer any of your questions so far, as far as I can tell. If I have, feel free to repeat them. Answering and then giving a counter-question would be a start. Also, do not make baseless assumptions about other people.
So anyways, please answer me this one simple question: Since you have been given, many times, a possible alternate explanation for what you call the uniformity of nature (Note that this alternate explanation is even likeley, which it wouldn't even have to be.), which basically makes your "proof" crumble, why haven't you taken down, or corrected, your website yet?
> Plus anyone who comes to faith in God via a logical argument does not come to faith in the REAL God, because that would indicate that reason and logic DO NOT depend ENIRELY on God.
They don't.
> If the "reason for the hope that you have" is a simple logical argument, that's once again a pretty weak faith.
It's about your god, isn't it? I'd say it has plenty do with your faith, or lack of it. Once again, the real christians I know outright reject anything like a "proof of god", as such an idea undermines faith.
> Read the site again, people cannot convert people, and it ain't my job.
Then why are you trying to do it? Even from the perspective of your own religion, are you are doing is causing harm.
the real christians I know outright reject anything like a "proof of god"The 'real' Christians you know should read the Bible (Acts 9:22)
Then why are you trying to do it?I'm not. I am trying to obey a command.
Since you have been given, many times, a possible alternate explanation for what you call the uniformity of natureThe multiverse theory is not only a wild leap of faith, it answers nothing (as proponents of that theory admit), since it does not explain the origins of the multiple universes.
>>87
Same explanation as your god; they just suddenly pop into existence.
>>87
Oh, and what does it matter that it's a leap of faith? It's possible, thats good enough for here.
>Acts 9:22
That's pretty irrelevant. It has nothing to do with a proof of god's existence.
No, I still think you are trying to back up your own weak faith, and masking it by pretending to follow a command nobody else follows.
Or perhaps you are just acting out of vanity and trying to make yourself look more clever than those around you?
Same explanation as your god; they just suddenly pop into existence.You might do better here if you stopped attributing theories to me that I do not espouse. I do not believe that God "suddenly popped into existence," I believe that he has always existed. If you care to translate that view to 'material' entities, the floor is yours.
That's pretty irrelevant. It has nothing to do with a proof of god's existence.It has to do with proof of a deity, something which your 'real' Christian friends apparently deny.
> I believe that he has always existed.
k, sorry.
> If you care to translate that view to 'material' entities, the floor is yours.
Why would I need to? I'll just stay with "they just suddenly pop into existence.", which is a good enough explanation.
Oh, and what does it matter that it's a leap of faith? It's possible, thats good enough for here.How do you know that it is possible?
> How do you know that it is possible?
Because there is no reason why it shouldn't be.
Why would I need to? I'll just stay with "they just suddenly pop into existence.", which is a good enough explanationIf you are happy to rest your argument on material things just 'popping into existence,' from nothing, and 'creating' life, sentience, intelligence, abstract entitities, logic, human dignity, and morality, I will be happy to let anyone compare whose faith is more reasonable.
Because there is no reason why it shouldn't be.How do you know there is no reason why it shouldn't be?
>>97
This is ridiculous. You are asking me to proove something is correct, which cannot be done, that is a fundamental property of any scientific hypothesis - they can be disproved though, so if you have such a reason, out with it. If not, I'll assume there are none. It's your job to proove me wrong, not mine.
>>99
I don't know anyting for sure (<- besides that), obviously. Neither do you, which is another problem altogether with "prooving god". For all you know, all your input might be simulated, and what you regard as the word of god might be fake. For all you know, there is no past and no present, and there might only be "now".
Knowing that we do not know anything for sure besides that we do not know anything for sure is the only thing we know for sure. This is the only conclusion that needs to pressupose nothing, not even logic itself, since if logic is not there, we cannot know anything either.
I don't know anyting for sure (<- besides that), obviously. Neither do youSo you don't know anything for sure, yet you know that "Neither do I." I think that if you don't know anything for sure, you should live consistenly with your beliefs and stop making knowledge claims.
> So you don't know anything for sure, yet you know that "Neither do I."
I did not say that. Reread:
> Knowing that we do not know anything for sure besides that we do not know anything for sure is the only thing we know for sure. This is the only conclusion that needs to pressupose nothing, not even logic itself, since if logic is not there, we cannot know anything either.
As you see, I know one thing for sure. (I know, I'd have to expand that sentence infiniteley, which for practical reasons I won't. Language can't really put this concept properly, I guess.)
> I think that if you don't know anything for sure, you should live consistenly with your beliefs and stop making knowledge claims.
As you very well know, there is a difference between scientific knowledge, which is gained by observation and validated by testing, and philosophical knowledge, which does not exist.
> Indeed the only way ANYONE can know ANYTHING for sure is through divine revelation by an omniscient being, exactly what Christians claim.
So, they claim that they know truth, and everyone else is wrong because they say that their god said so? That's laughable and does not show anything.
> Again, if you can't know anything for sure, please be consistent and stop making knowledge claims.
> As you very well know, there is a difference between scientific knowledge, which is gained by observation and validated by testing, and philosophical knowledge, which does not exist.
As you can see, I am trusting my senses, for practical reasons. That has nothing to do with not beeing able to know anything.
Besides that, this has sunken to attacking of messengers instead of arguments, and you do not seem to be willing to actually engage in debate, so I'll just leave it at that. You might as well, too, maybe you will see some day that you are wrong, maybe I will (Both are unlikeley, for different reasons ;) ). Bye, for now.
As you can see, I am trusting my senses, for practical reasons. That has nothing to do with not beeing able to know anything.Um, how do you know?
I don't know why you even bother trying to argue with this failure of a christian and failure of a logician. His arguments are as weak as his faith, and in order for the latter not to be shattered, he has to keep making absurd arguments to selectively ignore counter-arguments. You're not getting anywhere talking to such a man.
> What do you believe?
> Laws of Logic Exist. <<
> Seriously...What Do You Believe?
> Molesting Children for Fun is Absolutely Morally Wrong [facepalm.jpg]
I lol'd
>You people just don't get it do you, you would have to FIRST have FAITH that your reasoning was valid BEFORE you could use it to prove ANYTHING.
I don't have "faith" in the validity of my reasoning, I trust it. I have the scientific method to back me up and allow everyone else to confirm that my reasoning leads to same result so I trust every other member of the community to verify my reasoning. Even if I was wrong what defines a truth is that everyone accepts it for such, given that there is a lot we still ignore about the universe mistakes have happened when people believed that the sun goes around the earth or even more recent when we believed that stress caused peptic ulcers. Mistakes like this have happened and will happen again while we try to learn about this universe.
I also trust that the knowledge I have acquired through experimentation allows me to reproduce the results any number of times and to predict the outcome if the conditions in the experiment have been changed. Once again this is not faith.
>>How do you know that it is possible?
Nothing is impossible
I forgot to add that it is not part of science to prove god wrong, stop trying to confront them, they're not opposite of one another.
Tell that to the OP. This thread plus many others are in the wrong board.
> All things science, philosophy, natural sciences, sociology and other related academic topics are all talked about.
In the absence of a religion board it counts as philosophy, I suppose.
Maybe it could go on Personal Issues?
>>116
You seem pretty certain you can prove your beliefs with:
> the scientific method
Despite logical fallacies such as Appeal to Popularity:
> what defines a truth is that everyone accepts it
Weak Analogy and/or Proof by example:
> mistakes have happened when people believed that the sun goes around the earth
Argument from ignorance , Appeal to probability, Negative proof, etc...
> Nothing is impossible
Logical Fallacy...
Begging the Question, or,
Argument from Refusal to Google:
> explain further, otherwise it means nothing
>>118 seems to be suffering from this condition, which manifests mostly on the internet, where a person speaks only by naming logical fallacies. It is usually coupled with a belief in one's own argumentative superiority. Secondary symptoms include being a horrible bore.
I've been away from this place... I hope I haven't missed all of the action this thread will see. (I enjoyed the last round!) Despite a two-day absence, Proof.org guy hasn't said he'd gone away yet. I hope this thread won't just be a repeat of the last one... so far it looks like it sort-of is. Eh... Any other god-believers in the house? Any from any other school of apologetics? I tire of Presuppositionalism.
My case for atheism is simple: no reason to believe, so I don't. Of course, I am only able to consider potential reasons I have actually encountered. So far, none have cut the mustard.
Now, to respond to some points. Don't really want to get into 'proving logic' again... But if we absolutely must...
>The problem of evil is actually with the atheist though, If God did NOT exist, the whole concept of 'evil' would be meaningless. What one bag of advanced primordial slime does to another bag of advanced primordial slime, whould be completely irrelevant.
Irrelevant to who? To a non-existent god, well, yeah. But surely not to the primordial slime-bags involved!
>All of science is based on the inductive principle or 'the uniformity of nature,' how do you account for the uniformity of nature outside of God?
A is A. Things act in accordance with their nature. We observe objects and discover their properties. I have no reason to believe that things have a randomly changing identity, so I don't. So I expect things to behave with predictable consistency.
>>122
NO U
>>you can't know anything for sure
Last time I debated religion vs. science IRL it came down to this, despite the fact anyone can see that nobody in real life subjects claims to this degree of solipsist rigor. It would be utterly crippling. Noone would ever accomplish anything. And you know it.
>>118
WTF is the point of this post? Are you trying to actually communicate something, or just quoting random text with no context and following it with names of logical fallacies?
>>121
More non-information.
>>122
Apparently so.
this thread is boring.
>>125
WTF is the point of this post? Jisaku Jien
These are just my personal thoughts about the topic and about that website, to add something to the debate.
proofthatgodexists.org kept on debating, in despite of being owned many times, btw, I am completely against that website even if I do believe in God's existence, that does mean that I'm going to blindly accept that brainwashing logic as a proof.
Let me tell you this tale:
A scholar, who'd later become a saint was trying to find the truth behind god's existence. He readed countless books trying to understand the real nature of god.
One day as he was walking on the beach, he found a young boy, who was digging an hole in the beach. The boy kept went back and forth trying to fill this hole with the water taken from the sea, using a small cup.
The scholar asked him: "What are you doing?"
and the boy: "I'm trying to put the sea into that hole I've digged"
The scholar laughed at him:
"You're trying to dry the sea by using that cup?"
And the boy replied smiling:
"Aren't you trying to uncover the truth behind god by using your science as well?"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to use a different approach:
1)Think about someone you truly love
2)Prove me that you do really love that person like you can prove any physics or maths law.
I could do anything for the person I'm in love with, but if we take like 100 people, there may still be that 1% that won't believe me.
And that 1% may be right because there's not absolute way to be 100% sure of someone else feeling like you can do with math.
That's just to say that we cannot determine god's existence using science or logic in my opinion. I believe that only with our innermost thoughts and feelings, with that part of us that's "more than human" we can grasps the truth about god's existance and nature for ourselves.
So in the end: you can believe in god because "you feel it" with your soul, but you cannot scientifically prove neither your feeling or god's existance to anyone else.
>you cannot scientifically prove neither your feeling or god's existance to anyone else
It's been mentioned at least twice already, science isn't about proving things but about testing hypothesis.
While your argument makes sense to me to certain extent, I think it depends on your definition of truth and love.
Now, try not to feed the christian troll
>>128
but emotions and feelings are just neurochemical states of the brain that can be completely measured and even forcibly replicated with the right tools.
>>129
You're right about it, I apologize for being a little off topic with my post. About the "christian troll", do not misunderstand me, I just felt like using that christian tale to express my thoughts.
>>130
I do not know much about Neuroscience or brain's latest studies but I believe that there's still much to study about that matter and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually even if we assume that each and every sort of emotion is a neurochemical state of the brain, and that we can force it, I do believe that science is still far from defining a (100% failproof) list of natural trigger for each and every emotion and feeling.
>>128
The parable makes no logical sense whatsoever.
> That's just to say that we cannot determine god's existence using science or logic
To suggest that god is outside the realm of logic and scientific proof is outside the nature of the debate. It's mere mysticism, and when a person resorts to mysticism, that's usually when they've lost the argument.
> in my opinion
Well, at least this is truthful.
> you can believe in god because "you feel it" with your soul
Soul? Now you just have another state of existence to prove besides god, goddess, gods, or goddesses.
>>130 is 100% correct.
> I believe that there's still much to study about that matter
There's always much to study about all matters.
>>132
The "soul" I was talking about it's
>that part of us that's "more than human"
as I've mentioned above while explaning my opinion, and I used the parable for the same purprose...
While 129 and I guess 130 understood my post, even if they don't feel the same, and they made some deep critics about it, pointing our other facts. You should have been a little more "open minded" to catch it properly, instead of shielding yourself behind the fact that I am offtopic.
However, allow me to avoid any useless escalation of replies to justify, explain and specify better, any of my statment, as long as they're easy to undestand, if you do it properly, any critic would have been welcome.
>>> To be continued
God isn't real. Google for "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Here's the abridged 4 chan version:
"There is no such thing as a Muslim Child. There is a child of Muslim Parents. There is no such thing as a Christian Child. There is a child of Christian Parents.
My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other
species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous
generations, and that experience needs to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff edge, not to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong.
Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them.
Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses.
Sociologists studying British children have found that only about one in twelve break away from their parents' religious beliefs."
"It would be a severe disadvantage, for example, when hunting or making tools, to keep changing one's mind, so under some circumstances, it is better to persist in an irrational belief than to vacillate, even if new evidence or ratiocination favours a change."
Douglas Adams:
"Religion . . . has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.
Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."
Andrew Mueller:
"Pledging yourself to any particular religion 'is no more or less weird than choosing to believe that the world is rhombus-shaped, and borne through the cosmos in the pincers of two enormous green lobsters called Esmerelda and Keith'."
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George Bush Snr.
Part 2
Bernard Russell:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is
a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit,
nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were
careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even
by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Richard Dawkins on the Bible:
"The gospels that didn't make it were omitted by those ecclesiastics perhaps because they included stories that were even more embarrassingly implausible than those in the four canonical ones. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus abusing his magical powers in the manner of a mischievous fairy, impishly transforming his playmates into goats,
or turning mud into sparrows, or giving his father a hand with the carpentry by miraculously lengthening a piece of wood."
"Darwin's cousin Francis Galton was the first to analyse scientifically whether praying for people is efficacious. He noted that every Sunday, in churches throughout Britain, entire congregations prayed publicly for the health of the royal family. Shouldn't they, therefore, be unusually fit, compared with the rest of us, who are prayed for only by our nearest and dearest? Galton looked into it, and found no statistical difference. His intention may, in any case, have been satirical, as also when he prayed over randomized plots of
land to see if the plants would grow any faster (they didn't)."
"when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further."
In other words, think for yourselves.
> that part of us that's "more than human"
Which part is that?
The gall bladder?
BOKU WA KAMI-SAMA
>>137
If you're going to try and wow us with your hardcore weeaboo-ism, at least learn some fucking Katakana.
神様で中学生
>>139
Better. I can thoroughly not understand you.
According to RikaiChan it translates to something like god in highschool.
Okay, some Japanese and anime trivia:
"God in highschool"/"Kami-sama de chuugakusei" is from the anime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamichu
Not very related to >>137 because in "Kamichu" the god is a schoolgirl and BOKU refers to oneself as male.
The only link is "kami-sama".
Note that -SAMA indicates reverence, and that BOKU is a boasting or childish "I". Therefore "BOKU WA KAMI-SAMA" is showing that the speaker is not proficient in the language and/or quite vain.
So, god is real then, right?
"There is no such thing as a Muslim Child. There is a child of Muslim Parents. There is no such thing as a Christian Child. There is a child of Christian Parents.
Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them.
>>143 I'm not sure if the Japanese definition of "kami" can be applied to the Western definition of "god". The translators use "kami" to translate "god" from Japanese but that's because it's the closest equivalent.
"Kami is the Japanese word for the spirits within objects in the Shinto faith. "Kami may, at its root, simply mean 'spirit', or an aspect of spirituality. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami
A spirit within a forest would be a kami. The spirit within the Earth would be a kami. The spirit within the Universe would be a kami.
This leads to interesting speculation: what if there is more than one spirit claiming ownership of the object?
> So, let me see if I get this right...there is no such thing as an Atheist Child There is a child of Atheist parents.
Correct... do you have a point or is that all?
I asked them, they said that as long as I don't listen to retarded christians everything is fine.
I think his point is that rationality is in the eye of the beholder.
Anyway, what would be enlightening is to discover which beliefs children adopt in the absence of parental influences.
Maybe something like http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1997-06-05/news/myths-over-miami/ ?
>>150
Are you still arguing with yourself?
God made me an atheist, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO CHALLENGE HIS WISDOM?
Ha ha oh wow, what a thread.
Prove that "God" DOES exist. I dare you all.
That is as impossible as proving god doesn't exist.
Both of them are quite stupid, by many reasons. Just be a "good" person and if there isn't a God you will have lived a good life, and if there is a God you will be rewarded for your excellent behavior.
Circular logic is circular.
>>154
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
>>157
That's easy, I'll just borrow the words of someone wiser then me:
"Reason is, and ought only to be, slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." - David Hume
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4705
Now, this doesn't exactly explain the trustworthiness of my ability to reason, but it applies to you just as well as it applies to me and all others here; that taken into consideration, this 'debate' suddenly makes a whole lot more sense.
You might also wish to peruse one of Hume's other great works, "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion."
According to the Bible, the Snake was the nice one who gave Man the knowledge, and god was a narrow-minded, jealous bastard who threw Man out of the Garden in retaliation.
>>160
While refreshing my memory of the work to answer that silly question, I found a passage a little more pertinent to your argument as stated in >>45. Rather then playing games of semantics, shall we revisit the original subject of this thread?
"They are still more frivolous, who say, that every effect must have a cause, because it is implyed in the very idea of effect. Every effect necessarily pre-supposes a cause; effect being a relative term, of which cause is the correlative. But this does not prove, that every being must be preceded by a cause; no more than it follows, because every husband must have a wife, that therefore every man must be marryed. The true state of the question is, whether every object, which begins to exist, must owe its existence to a cause: and this I assert neither to be intuitively nor demonstratively certain, and hope to have proved it sufficiently by the foregoing arguments." - Part III, Sect. III; please read it for the 'foregoing arguments', it's a little long and I do not want to copypasta it all
If you disagree with Hume's proof that not all beings must be preceded by a cause, please answer me this: What is the cause of the effect known as God? Would it not be more proper to pay our respects to that cause instead of its avatar?
If you do not disagree, why is it any less valid to postulate that logic, morality, or the physical world have always existed than it is that God has always existed?
>>161
DURRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>>163
Disregard that, I suck cocks.
> God is not an effect.
In that case, neither are logic, morality and the physical world.
Since the law of cause and effect does not apply to the divine entity, that law can no longer be considered universal and inviolable, and thus it is foolish to demand that some phenomenon of nebulous origin must be 'accounted' for while another is not. You are attempting to use the rule to prove the exception to the rule. This does not work.
>>166
Similar to >>46, I believe logic is a reapplication of natural laws, making it at its heart part of the physical world. I think morality is a social construct, but do not discount that societies other than our human one might exist or have existed to ponder it ever since the beginning of cosmology (lol aliens.) And I do not know what took place before the Big Bang, nor does anyone else. In short, I am an agnostic concerning those matters.
>>168
I will concede morality, because I do not wish to debate it. You may consider my inclusion of it to be in error.
I did not state that natural laws caused the laws of logic. Rather, I believe the laws of logic are a subset of the laws of nature, which humans have adapted to other purposes.
I did not state that Big Bang caused the physical world. It is a singularity, which makes it impossible to postulate meaningful theories about the nature of the physical world prior to the event.
>>170
If I had to pick, it would be the physical world. However, thanks to the Big Bang essentially erasing the history of the universe prior to it, I have no grounds whatsoever on which to make that judgement and so I won't do so.
Anyway, my point was that if God is uncaused, it opens the door for all sorts of other seemingly inexplicable phenomena to be without cause as well. You can't just say "All things must be traceable back to an origin EXCEPT for God, He is Special." If you are going to prove the existence of God using scientific laws, He must obey those laws as well.
>>172
Perhaps my choice of words in >>165 was poor. I meant not to state my own beliefs, but rather propose that if God is exempt from causality, then perhaps the phenomena I listed are exempt from causality as well. You can't rule out the convenient explanation for some phenomenon and not others.
My understanding is that if God is not required to obey natural laws, such as the law of causality, it means either two things: those laws are invalid, or God is supernatural. That which is supernatural is by definition outside the bounds of science. Your argument may be true, but if you hold that God is omnipotent (making him exempt from every natural and scientific law), it is neither scientific nor a proof and is an inadequate rebuttal to the opening argument of this thread: "God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed."
> My argument is that one cannot make sense of ANYTHING let alone causality, without God (a personal, omnipotent, immaterial, timeless being) as the first cause.
You know, there's a funny pattern throughout history. All sorts of phenomena (though particularly the dramatic) that contemporary scientific knowledge was unable to adequately explain - rain, lightning, earthquakes, life itself - was thought to be the work of gods or of God. As scientific explanations for these phenomena were developed, tested, and refined, the belief in a divine origin of these phenomena slowly faded away and in many cases disappeared entirely.
I see no reason why this pattern should not continue, until some distant day science has succeeded in explained everything, and there is no room left beyond it for gods to dwell. That is my faith.
> I see no reason why this pattern should not continue, until some distant day science has succeeded in explained everything, and there is no room left beyond it for gods to dwell.
I don't see that ever happening. At best/worst the believers still around would be either theists or deists. There will always be stones left unturned.
I see no reason why this pattern should not continue, until some distant day science has succeeded in explained everything, and there is no room left beyond it for gods to dwell. That is my faith.
> The problem is that the non-theist has absolutely zero basis for assuming that nature is uniform.
wrong
> random, chance world
your view, not science
> You base your faith in a science
semantics
> that is only possible because God exists
prove it