Does God really exist?

[blazedaces]

If God did not exist it would be necessary to create him.

I don't know about your definition of God, but if God was created by those he created... circular logic anyone?

-blazed

 

[Kalypso]

Care to elaborate?

We have no evidence of a god or unifying force in the universe. If we did, we could say 'there is god,' but we don't, so we don't have a solid answer as to whether or not it exists.

Humans need order. Many of us can't handle the harder questions and happenings of life, don't want to sit around philosophizing. We'd rather just have an answer as to why things are the way they are. Current Gods of various religions have two main uses, besides structuring the universe in an ordered fashion.

One is to explain natural phenomena, which science can't explain, or to offer a religious counterpoint to the scientific explanation. We see this in almost all religions, and the natural phenomena the god or myth explains is relative to that area (The fish myth in Japan, a fish under the earth gets angry and flops around, causing earthquakes for example, the Polytheist religions have gods for everything, if something happens just blame the god that it's related to). Without some spiritual, magical or religious explanation for these things, they would be completely misunderstood for centuries, even millennia until science caught up to explain them. People need religion for closure on the natural world.

The other is to explain more abstract, philosophical questions about life in a way that gives people answers they need to live life in an easier manner. The best example is death. Death is absolute, there is no evidence that your soul lives on after death, or that anything happens except dying. But that's really hard to cope with, and people would rather have their minds at ease. That is why EVERY religion explains death in a way that makes you live on afterwards. Egyptian afterlife, Heaven, Reincarnation, etc. It can be summed up in this sentence that breaches all social, cultural and language barriers- "He's going to a better place." No, he's not (At least we have no evidence that he's not), but it makes you feel better to think he is. People need religion for explanation and closure on philosophical and spiritual debate.

Now there may very well be a god, who does everything we think he does, but we have no evidence of his existence. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that there either is no god, or there is a god, but we know nothing about him.

Current incarnations of 'God' are nothing more than a collection of things people need to live their life in peace. If God does not exist, it would be entirely necessary to invent him, as people need this kind of closure in their lives.

 

[Dark.Pch]

To Me I dont believe in God. And I cant go by the bible cause of what you just said. I was create way too long ago. Times have changed since then. and even new belifes have come to past. I cant find myself believing in something that really cant be prove to clearly or if there is prove, its not up to date.

At one point I use to beleive in God. But then I lost hope in that. Its said god is suppose to be our savior, and that god loves all his children. Yet look at how the world is today. And the way people are dieing. Only person that can make a difference and help you is yourself. You control your life, not a book. And for these reason I dont think God exist.

The people who ask for gods help are the ones at times hurting and suffering. But do they get the help they want? At times they suffer even more. Why? Cause they are not doing anything to help themselfs. They want god to do it. So they do nothing and they wait for God to save them when they could have done something themselves and ended all the pain. I use to be like that. My love with my mom was bad, and she gave me depression, I would pray to god from time to time to help me and show me the way to be happy. but as years past it got worst.

To me, He does not exist. If you want something done and done right You have to do it yourself.

 

[Falco&Victory]

What many people may not now in that creating the universe and everything in it, God created order. This must mean that God himself must have been born outside of order. To all those who ask, "Who created god, it doesn't make sense?", being outside of all laws of physics his origins do not have to make sense.

A point I would like to argue is creation. The universe is ruled by mass, energy, time, and forces. Time and forces can't exist without mass and energy. God is creator of matter and energy, so in doing so he created every natural law in existence. He created all things at the beginning of all things. If god did not create matter and energy, where did it come from? To rule out the possibility of a time loop, time could not exist if matter and energy did not.

At one point I use to believe in God. But then I lost hope in that. Its said god is suppose to be our savior, and that god loves all his children. Yet look at how the world is today. And the way people are dieing. Only person that can make a difference and help you is yourself. You control your life, not a book. And for these reason I don't think God exist.

Now, how would you feel if you had no choice in how you lived? What would separate those with faith and those who follow orders? You might be doing the right things because you have to. If that was true everyone would ascend to heaven or be punished in life, not in death. God once tried to rule mankind, and what happened? Wars ensued, people were killed, and man tried harder than ever to escape the rule of god. People wanted to be masters of their own fate, so their wish was granted. I believe in god, and worship god, and I myself and happy with the way things are. People in life are given choices, and it's other people's choices that lead to misery. Yes, natural disasters happen, but they happened when God was ruling us also.

I use to be atheist, then agnostic, so I know where some people are reasoning from. Think about it though, do you really want to tempt fate?

 

[Kalypso]

Just some stuff to consider, posted on another forum. Consider.

Fun with Omnipotence

To really start this, we have to define each of them-

All Loving- Always acting in man-kinds best interests
All Powerful- Able to do/alter anything. Root admin.
All Knowing- Can see everything that is happening, has happened, will happen

When God creates a person, if he is all-powerful he creates everything about that person. If he is all-knowing, he knows before doing this how it will affect the person in the future, I.E. whether or not they will go to heaven or hell. How is it possible for an all-loving god to knowingly create someone in a way that sends them straight to hell?
-Explain how he can be all-loving

When God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he knows whether or not you go to heaven or hell before he creates you. This is, by definition, fate. You can't have 'free will' to go to heaven or hell based on your lifes actions if there's a variable ingrained in your being that has already decided where you go.
-Explain how you have free will when God knows everything you will ever do before you are born, and creates you that way

When God is all-powerful and all-loving, why are there so many tragedies in life? "God works in mysterious ways" doesn't cover how he is 'All-Loving' throughout this. It explains that we don't ****ing understand him, but it totally leaves all-loving blank. If you are to assume that he is always acting in our best interest, explain how so many people being maimed, crippled, killed etc are being 'helped.'
-How is he all-loving throughout all this?

You can keep doing this all day. There are countless logical proofs that work against an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing god. Really, the best option here is an all-powerful all-knowing god, that isn't all-loving. Sure, you don't have free will, but it's better than the alternatives. Logical impossibility, a god without all-power, or a god without all-knowledge.

Countering common arguments

C: You can't analyze god logically, logic is a product of man and is fallible.
K: Then you can't have faith in god, because faith is also a product of man and is equally as fallible.

C: God works in mysterious ways.
K: Another way of saying that nothing you do in life matters. If he's so mysterious that we don't understand anything he does, afterall, why would we be so arrogant as to think we know what he likes? Maybe he hates prayer.

C: *Anything about the bible*
K: *Historical evidence, logic, reason, science, contradictions from other sections of the bible, segment from "Dora the Explorer" that makes more sense*

C: I just want to live by God
K: You break the 2nd commandment every time you enter a church. Graven Images.

There's a key difference. When discussing religion and saying something that makes no sense, logically or rationally, there is no reason to believe it besides faith, and only one side of the argument subscribes to faith, so it is a failed method of argument. However, when reading a scientific journal you have good reason to believe it is true, you just don't understand the specific mathematical terms displayed.

Common argument that makes no sense:

Christian: How can you not believe in God?
Kalypso: There is no reason for me to believe in God. For me to believe in something, there needs to be reason to. There is no evidence to support the idea that a God exists.
Christian: *some incorrect piece of evidence to try and prove their faith*
Kalypso: *explanation of why that is invalid, and their faith is perfectly fine, but they need to accept that it's faith and not try to prove it scientifically*
Christian: But You have presented no evidence that God doesn't exist...
Kalypso: Two things, one- it's your job to prove that he does, not mine to prove that he doesn't. *Russel's teapot*. Two, there is logical evidence to suggest that God can not exist by Christian definition.
Christian: What is it?
Kalypso: *explains free will paradox*
Christian: You can't logically analyze God, logic is a product of man and is fallible, God is perfect.
Kalypso: Your only reason for believing in God is faith, and faith is also a product of man, which is equally fallible. The difference is, I have evidence to support my logic, you have no evidence to support your faith.
Christian: *goes off on a tangent*

I have had that conversation 100 times, and never has anyone talked their way out of it. I win, logically, every time. There is no reason to believe the Christians side of the story, whereas with the article there is plenty of reason to believe it, you just don't understand it.

Have your faith, I'm glad it makes you happy, but don't try to argue logically/scientifically about it, most people will call you on it, and there are no logical/scientific proofs on your side. Taking things on faith is fine, but you don't use things you take on faith in an argument, ESPECIALLY when you are trying to invalidate what someone else takes on logic, reason or science, because they 'don't apply.' A blind man can see the hypocrisy. The problem isn't the idea, it's it being used in an argument where both sides don't agree.

Specifically the 'Free Will Paradox' on fate, free will and choices.

 

[Falco&Victory]

I would like to bring up the point, "you can't have faith in god, because faith is also a product of man and is equally as fallible."

That is simply incorrect logic. If faith is a product of man, than how can we not have it? Of course, no man's faith is infallible, we all have our questions. Without questions, though, how can we find answers?

The reason you win that argument, Kalypso, can be found in the post above yours. God exists outside space and time, in what I consider chaos. There is no logic, no order in chaos, so of course you can't justify god scientifically. He created all that is logical, so therefore by his own act it is impossible to have perfect evidence of god. I suggest you read my previous post, it is quite an eye opener, even though you might disagree. I made a counter-argument to your reasoning. Just like your logic, it is logically infallible.

Now, as I should point out, in Genesis 6:14, the world was not completely flooded. That was later found the be an over-statement by whoever wrote that section. There was a large flood, certainly, but only large portions of earth were covered. Of those portions, most were located in Asia and along coastlines. It is correct that there was no worldwide flood.

 

[Kalypso]

I would like to bring up the point, "you can't have faith in god, because faith is also a product of man and is equally as fallible."

That is simply incorrect logic. If faith is a product of man, than how can we not have it? Of course, no man's faith is infallible, we all have our questions. Without questions, though, how can we find answers?

It's a response to the argument 'You can't analyze god logically because logic is a product of man and fallible.' Only in the context of responding to that statement does it mean anything.

Now, as I should point out, in Genesis 6:14, the world was not completely flooded. That was later found the be an over-statement by whoever wrote that section. There was a large flood, certainly, but only large portions of earth were covered. Of those portions, most were located in Asia and along coastlines. It is correct that there was no worldwide flood.

Doesn't that suggest that nothing in the bible can be taken literally, because it's all subject to authorship and isn't the word of god?

The reason you win that argument, Kalypso, can be found in the post above yours. God exists outside space and time, in what I consider chaos. There is no logic, no order in chaos, so of course you can't justify god scientifically. He created all that is logical, so therefore by his own act it is impossible to have perfect evidence of god. I suggest you read my previous post, it is quite an eye opener, even though you might disagree. I made a counter-argument to your reasoning. Just like your logic, it is logically infallible.

First, and I mean this in the most respectable manner possible, don't assume that you know more than other people here. I don't know whether or not you think that, but the way I read this it's implied. That's a state of mind that is very destructive for a debate, and also, no offense, you're 15. There's an old saying that explains that if you know nothing, you think you know everything, and the more you know, the more you also know that you don't know, and the more you accept that instead of knowing everything, you know nothing. For example, if someone from 100 years ago knew everything about science he could know, he thought he knew everything, but if he was given todays textbooks he'd see just how much he didn't know, and how little he did.

Again, I don't know whether or not that really applies, it's just a preventative measure. At 15 I was rather cocky, but it was really, really misplaced.

As for 'God came out of nothing and created everything, so you can't analyze him,' I again respond that that means you know nothing about your own religion. How do you know what god likes and what he dislikes? None of us know anything about him right? If he's that mysterious and omnipresent, we really don't know anything about him, and following an organized religion is pointless, what if he hates prayer?

The only way to know, for sure, in the eyes of religion what god wants is to read the bible. If you want me to list about 13,000 reasons you can't take the bible literally, I will, and if you can't take some of it literally the whole thing is out, can't pick and choose what you want.

 

[snex]

falco & victory's argument amounts to nothing more than asserting that god exists and created what f&v wants him to have created, and doesnt suffer from the same problems merely because he says so.

does he have any evidence for any of this? no, he just asserts.

and really, pascal's wager f&v? what are you, 12? nobody who used to be an atheist falls for this crap.

 

[Crimson King]

I would like to bring up the point, "you can't have faith in god, because faith is also a product of man and is equally as fallible."

That is simply incorrect logic. . .

It's interesting that as a religious person you would say something is incorrect logically. Faith is believing where there is no evidence by definition. To prove god exists is to have evidence for him and thusly loss of faith. God cannot exist without faith therefore proving god exists disproves him.

 

[Falco&Victory]

I didn't prove god exists, I simply made an argument of how you cannot prove he doesn't exist. If I proved he existed, like you said I wouldn't have faith.

Of course the Bible can't be taken literally, it has been translated and re-translated. The scribes who translated it from hebrew to other languages often misisterpreted. I read from the modern translations.

How do we know what god wants? Everything we know of god stems from the bible, which states the tasks of different choirs of angels, the 10 commandments, several immolations for disobeying god, and everything else we know god. God used prophets to spread his word. He demanded prayer and worship. The catholic church was established just as god wanted.

Of course I can't easily convince you to believe in god, I'm trying to show you my viewpoints. It's wrong to force my vieepoints upon others, I'm just trying to show how you can't prove atheism to be correct.

 

[Kalypso]

I didn't prove god exists, I simply made an argument of how you cannot prove he doesn't exist. If I proved he existed, like you said I wouldn't have faith.

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 an 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russels_Teapot

Of course the Bible can't be taken literally, it has been translated and re-translated. The scribes who translated it from hebrew to other languages often misisterpreted. I read from the modern translations.

If the bible cannot be taken literally, what is the basis for your religious beliefs?

How do we know what god wants? Everything we know of god stems from the bible, which states the tasks of different choirs of angels, the 10 commandments, several immolations for disobeying god, and everything else we know god. God used prophets to spread his word. He demanded prayer and worship. The catholic church was established just as god wanted.

You just told me the bible can't be taken literally.

Of course I can't easily convince you to believe in god, I'm trying to show you my viewpoints. It's wrong to force my vieepoints upon others, I'm just trying to show how you can't prove atheism to be correct.

I'm not trying to prove atheism, neither side can prove their viewpoints, but the difference between atheism and theism is that atheism is founded in logic and reason, the basis of science and human progression. Theism is based mostly in outdated mythology, and the morals that theists believe in are not in any way inextricably tied to the myths themselves, I, an atheist of 7 years hold the golden rule of 'do unto others as you would have them do to you' as the most important belief anyone could ever have. You don't need religion for morals. So what you're left with is mythology. Most of it can be disproven scientifically. That which you can't disprove scientifically, you can disprove logically. The only way to accept religion once you think a great deal about it is to disregard logic and reason in favor of faith, which is a terrible decision that reverses the progress of mankind.

Proof?

Images from the 'Genesis Creation Museum'
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p125/cubswin39/Creation Museum/creationmuseum038.jpg
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p125/cubswin39/Creation Museum/creationmuseum037.jpg
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p125/cubswin39/Creation Museum/creationmuseum030.jpg
This is supposed to prove Christian ideals, by the way

http://forums.offtopic.com/showthread.php?t=3248787

I'm not trying to prove to you that Atheism is the only way to go, only that Christianity, and most other religions are completely flawed based on their mythology, and if you disregard the mythology and only focus on beliefs you're getting into philosophy, not religion.

 

[Digital Watches]

I think that snex and Kalypso have pretty much covered what I would have said here, including Pascal's Wager and something like the third mention of Russel's Teapot in this thread, except for this:

F&V, your argument for the existance of god begs the question, that is to say, it only makes sense if what you're saying is already assumed to be true. There is thus far no reason to believe that your assertion that aforementioned god created time and order is true, ergo, you cannot logically say that it therefore makes sense, given lack of time and "chaos," (Which sounds remarkably like "magic" the way you use it) that God could exist without being himself created by something. You go on to say that matter could not have sprung from nowhere, while simultaneously asserting that a highly-intelligent, all-powerful being sprang from nowhere.

 

[Falco&Victory]

F&V, your argument for the existance of god begs the question, that is to say, it only makes sense if what you're saying is already assumed to be true. There is thus far no reason to believe that your assertion that aforementioned god created time and order is true, ergo, you cannot logically say that it therefore makes sense, given lack of time and "chaos," (Which sounds remarkably like "magic" the way you use it) that God could exist without being himself created by something. You go on to say that matter could not have sprung from nowhere, while simultaneously asserting that a highly-intelligent, all-powerful being sprang from nowhere.

Of course it is assumed to be true. If anyone has read the bible then you might have read the verse stating that god is outside of space and time, outside of alpha and omega. Chaos does kind of sound like magic when used like I did, doesn't it? Almost all of what I stated before, God creating time, matter, energy, and all of existence is in the bible. Matter could indeed have been here forever, before there was an order in the universe, in the same way I believe god has been here forever. Like I said, it's impossible to prove either to be correct, so it all comes down to faith. I don't think it's right to even tempt fate, the old,"If I'm right you're going to end up burning in eternal hellfire", statement really got to me.

You just told me the bible can't be taken literally.

Sorry, Kalypso, I should have stated that better. The original bible cannot be taken literally. That is, the bible of the Catholic church. The modern bibles used today, mostly in Baptism has been translated correctly. It is the bible that I and most of my church uses. It has been widely agreed that it is more accurate than the original translation, simply because it stems directly from the Hebrew bible.

I'm not trying to prove atheism, neither side can prove their viewpoints, but the difference between atheism and theism is that atheism is founded in logic and reason, the basis of science and human progression. Theism is based mostly in outdated mythology, and the morals that theists believe in are not in any way inextricably tied to the myths themselves, I, an atheist of 7 years hold the golden rule of 'do unto others as you would have them do to you' as the most important belief anyone could ever have. You don't need religion for morals. So what you're left with is mythology. Most of it can be disproven scientifically.

I never needed religion for morals, I just found a church to go to awhile ago, and before that I acted just the same. Of course, I know that a lot of the mythology can be proven incorrect, but a lot of that mythology is, as I said, exaggerated. What about the finding of an arc, out of reach of any body of water with traces of several non-native animals? How about discovering a completely matching description of where Moses spoke to god after leading the slaves out of Egypt? Yes, evidence has also been found of a large flood, though not close to being worldwide of course. I understand that we will never accept each others viewpoints, but neither of them is wrong, it's just what you believe.

 

[snex]

Of course it is assumed to be true. If anyone has read the bible then you might have read the verse stating that god is outside of space and time, outside of alpha and omega. Chaos does kind of sound like magic when used like I did, doesn't it? Almost all of what I stated before, God creating time, matter, energy, and all of existence is in the bible. Matter could indeed have been here forever, before there was an order in the universe, in the same way I believe god has been here forever. Like I said, it's impossible to prove either to be correct, so it all comes down to faith. I don't think it's right to even tempt fate, the old,"If I'm right you're going to end up burning in eternal hellfire", statement really got to me.

so what if the bible says it? if you were an atheist, like you say, you wouldnt have given the bible any more credibility than any other book. the quran says that being a christian will get you to hell, so why dont you convert to islam? what if the muslims are right? youll be in hell!

why is "hell" even a valid thread to an atheist? atheists dont believe in hell, so why would they be afraid of an ancient book saying theyll go there?

Sorry, Kalypso, I should have stated that better. The original bible cannot be taken literally. That is, the bible of the Catholic church. The modern bibles used today, mostly in Baptism has been translated correctly. It is the bible that I and most of my church uses. It has been widely agreed that it is more accurate than the original translation, simply because it stems directly from the Hebrew bible.

nonsense. there are no "original" copies of any book of the bible anywhere in existence. even if more modern translations (and catholics use a modern translation btw) are better matched to what we do have, this neither proves the translation is correct, nor does it prove the veracity of the claims themselves. you also forget that the books of the bible arent the only books written on these topics. there are HUNDREDS of ancient books from jewish scripture and about jesus that the catholic church decided just shouldnt be included because they didnt match catholic doctrine. protestant bibles follow the same suit. why do you ignore all these other books that the catholic church didnt include in the bible?

What about the finding of an arc, out of reach of any body of water with traces of several non-native animals? How about discovering a completely matching description of where Moses spoke to god after leading the slaves out of Egypt?

neither of these actually exist. you have fallen for con-man ron wyatt's absurd claims for which he never produced evidence. ron wyatt was never an archaeologist. he was a nurse who wanted to prove the bible was literally true, so he conned a bunch of people into funding his trips to the middle east where he used DOWSING RODS(!) to find biblical artifacts. unfortunately, he never actually produced any evidence that he found anything at all.

 

[Digital Watches]

Of course it is assumed to be true. If anyone has read the bible then you might have read the verse stating that god is outside of space and time, outside of alpha and omega. Chaos does kind of sound like magic when used like I did, doesn't it? Almost all of what I stated before, God creating time, matter, energy, and all of existence is in the bible. Matter could indeed have been here forever, before there was an order in the universe, in the same way I believe god has been here forever.

Right, which only holds true if you assume the bible to be true. Therefore, begging the question.

Like I said, it's impossible to prove either to be correct, so it all comes down to faith. I don't think it's right to even tempt fate, the old,"If I'm right you're going to end up burning in eternal hellfire", statement really got to me.

Faith is fine for you, but this is a debate, and thus you must be able to convincingly assert something with either evidence or logic to back it. Pascal's wager is pointless, because there's no way to appease EVERY faith that sends you to hell for not following it, due to so many of them being mutually exclusive. Therefore it will convince no one. Being swayed by that sort of logic is dumb anyway. If I were to tell you you'd go to hell if you didn't give me $5,000 cash in the next twenty days, would you do it? If so, we have much to talk about.

Sorry, Kalypso, I should have stated that better. The original bible cannot be taken literally. That is, the bible of the Catholic church. The modern bibles used today, mostly in Baptism has been translated correctly. It is the bible that I and most of my church uses. It has been widely agreed that it is more accurate than the original translation, simply because it stems directly from the Hebrew bible.

That's splitting hairs at best. But snex covered that better than I possibly could. Same goes for the next paragraph of your argument.

 

[AltF4]

It has been said before that this thread is kind of stacked against those arguing on the side of religion. This is true, not only from the standpoint that those people are outnumbered by a considerable margin, but also by the difficulty of their task. Unfortunately for them, I am also an Atheist. Here's how I see the topic of religion without getting into details about specifics:

There are only two things in the world: Evidence and Theory. Evidence is something that is observed. It gives you information about the world and how it works. A Theory is a collection of rules and other ideas that explain how the world works. If you see a rock fall, that is an observation. The answer to the question "why does it fall" (gravity) is a theory.

Theories can never be proven. They can only be disproven. Those theories that by their construction could potentially be disproven in the future are considered matters of science. For example, gravity is a scientific theory. If we found an object that didn't obey the rules we normally associate with gravity, the theory would be disproven.

Theories that, by their very nature, cannot be disproven are matters of philosophy. These are theories like the famous "inverted spectrum" theory, as well as some brought up in this thread like the flying teacup thing. They cannot, by design, be proven or disproven. Thus, they are kind of fun to think about but are essentially useless. They by construction cannot have any consequence on our lives even if they were to be true or not.

The same is true of religion. They are invariably set up in such a way that they cannot be disproven. Therefore it is a matter of philosophy, not science. And as such it is perhaps fun to think about, but not anything worthy of more.

That is the view of an agnostic. I do believe what I just said, but I actually go further. I claim to be a Strong Atheist. Meaning that I believe there to be no god. The reason is that given the evidence that we can see, the only consistent scientific theory is one that does not involve a god. There are other consistent theories, but not scientific ones.

The question in this thread would be better asked not "does god exist", but "describe a god that could be disproven". If someone could provide a consistent theory (one that does not contradict evidence) that could be disproven (scientific theory) then we'll have a real debate.

 

[Falco&Victory]

@Snex: I recommend you watch out for history channel. They have a great program named, "History of the Bible", or something like that. It explains the translations, the catholic church's misinterpretations, and several different problems scribes faced with literal interpretations.

As for the $5000 argument, unless you have millions of worshipers and have immolated people, I don't think that argument stands.

On Ron Wyatt's claim, true, that was false, but there was a discovery of ancient composites of gopher wood along with old traces of animal feces found somewhere in the world(not sure where, could somebody look that up for me?).


@Altf4Warrior, there is much evidence to support the bible, though it is still mostly theories. As for now, nothing mentioned in the bible has been wholly disproved. Histories of biblical times seem to match perfectly with the bible. We have also found physical evidence of a fair number of biblical events.

I agree with you though, we can not disprove god, or prove him. As I've stated before I believe this argument is pointless. We might as well argue Russel's teapot.

 

[AltF4]

It's not about having some evidence that supports the claims that the bible makes. Indeed many of the events that are described in the book likely took place in one form or another. (Though likely quite warped from the whisper-down-the-alley effect)

I know that god cannot be proven, no theory can. My challenge to those who wish to argue on the side of religion is not to try to prove that god exists, since that is impossible, it is to describe a religion that could be disproven. Then you would have a topic that falls in the realm of science not not philosophy. Don't hide behind cop outs like "we humans couldn't possibly understand god" or "god is beyond the realm of reason". That is what you say when you can't think of any way to support your claims. So instead of being beaten outright, you make your religion impossible to disprove. But in doing so you downgrade it to the realm of pointless philosophy.

I'll give you a nudge in the right direction. Albert Einstein was not an Atheist, but he didn't believe in the sort of god that you typically think of. He did not believe in a personal god, not one that you could talk to, not one that meddles in the everyday affairs of humans. That kind of god is in direct violation of countless physical laws. Think about it. Why would god go to all the trouble of coming up with these laws if he were going to just go and break them?

He instead saw god as an enforcer of the laws. Modern physics can describe the universe and how it works, but not why it's here. Hawking asks this question as "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" Einstein saw god as one who is a creator but not a meddler.

This kind of god is consistent, meaning that it creates no contradictions. But it is still philosophical, it has no way of being disproven. Take this idea and see if you can make something out of it.

 

[Falco&Victory]

God is not a meddler, not anymore. He let mankind know of his existence, and when things got out of hand he led them back on the track of righteousness instead of letting his work go to waste. I agree with all your points, (except, "Can't support my claims", evidence has been found to support several of my claims), and the 'whisper down the alley" effect is what causes so much argument over whether or not some event happened, when it did, just not as people were taught to believe it happened.

As we've both said, the main argument is useless, neither side of the argument is getting anywhere. I don't see the point of debtaing any more. I view god much as Einstein does, though not exactly the same. When I create something, I meddle with it, so why wouldn't god?

 

[snex]

unfortunately, the history channel is mostly garbage these days. i wouldnt trust them about anything on the bible. their "experts" are in fact kooks that dont actually go with the scientific consensus in their field. why do you think history channel is playing crap about UFOs and bigfoot?

and, your claim about "gopher wood" (there actually is no such thing. GPHR is the original hebrew word left untranslated. nobody knows what it means.) is false. the claim about animal feces is true, but so what? newsflash, animals crap in the wild. you only find feces of animals that are local to the environment, which doesnt validate the ark story at all.

regarding other bible stories, there is so little evidence that its actually quite pitiful. nothing in the entire torah has evidence. there is some evidence for the period of judges, kings, and prophets, but again, very little (and none of it supporting supernaturalism). there is extremely little evidence regarding the gospels, and what little there is is based on the fact that the gospel writers reported embarrassing facts about jesus and needed to rationalize them.

the amount of the bible validated by evidence is so little that you might as well believe the robin hood stories as well.

 

[Falco&Victory]

History channel use to be quite a reliable source, and all of those fall shows always have a disclaimer. The program I watched is probably around 10 years old.

About the animal feces evidence, there was such a wide variety that it was concluded that it was most likely not wild animals. Also, petrified wood was found, but they were unable to determine whether it was natural or not.

There may be little evidence to support the bible, but there is some evidence, and it always fits with ancient records of history. Ancient recordings show that Jesus most likely existed, whether or not he is the son of god though is what you believe. As has been said, it all comes down to faith.

 

[snex]

About the animal feces evidence, there was such a wide variety that it was concluded that it was most likely not wild animals. Also, petrified wood was found, but they were unable to determine whether it was natural or not.

your animal feces claims are completely made up. i dare you to present a source.

oh and petrified wood? its ALL natural.

There may be little evidence to support the bible, but there is[/i[ some evidence, and it always fits with ancient records of history. Ancient recordings show that Jesus most likely existed, whether or not he is the son of god though is what you believe. As has been said, it all comes down to faith.

ancient recordings do not show that jesus most likely existed. there are ZERO contemporary accounts of his life. even the gospels were written at least 40 years after he supposedly died. the most historians have to say about jesus is that there was probably a guy named jesus who inspired the stories, but that most of the stories in the gospels were completely made up.

 

[Falco&Victory]

your animal feces claims are completely made up. i dare you to present a source.

Um, ok.

the claim about animal feces is true

ancient recordings do not show that jesus most likely existed. there are ZERO contemporary accounts of his life. even the gospels were written at least 40 years after he supposedly died. the most historians have to say about jesus is that there was probably a guy named jesus who inspired the stories, but that most of the stories in the gospels were completely made up.

Historians have no evidence to contradict the old testament. All historical record from the time generally support claims in the bible. Yes, there are many claims to support Jesus ha lived. How about that actual record were kept about the date of his death(we are actually living in year 1983 AD or something like that), and that only a generation later a holiday was made honoring his death in several countries? Church histories(not the bible, other historical records) show that he most like existed. Whether or not you find this information credible or not is your opinion. No evidence has been found to say Jesus couldn't have existed, while some evidence does support his existence.

 

[snex]

quoting me isnt a source, but its beside the point. what i was saying was true is that animal feces was found. then you went and made nonsense up, which you still have not presented a cite for.

Historians have no evidence to contradict the old testament. All historical record from the time generally support claims in the bible. Yes, there are many claims to support Jesus ha lived. How about that actual record were kept about the date of his death(we are actually living in year 1983 AD or something like that), and that only a generation later a holiday was made honoring his death in several countries? Church histories(not the bible, other historical records) show that he most like existed. Whether or not you find this information credible or not is your opinion. No evidence has been found to say Jesus couldn't have existed, while some evidence does support his existence.

this is nonsense through and through. TONS of evidence contradicts the old testament. the entire creation myth in genesis is bunk. a global flood is literally impossible. there were never masses of hebrew slaves in egypt, and there were never masses of hebrews in the desert. jericho was destroyed long before the hebrews ever got to it.

regarding jesus, there is no evidence about the date of his death. you just made that up. there are no church histories that go back far enough to be evidence for jesus. the oldest "church history" we have are paul's letters in the new testament. they date to the mid-40s AD. the only problem is that paul never met jesus, and was thus relying on hearsay in anything he said about him. and paul didnt say much.. all paul wrote about was that jesus was put to death under pilate and rose (but its questionable whether he meant physically rose or spiritually rose). beyond this, the only other claims about jesus with any liklihood are his baptism by john the baptist, the sermon on the mount, and his ***-kicking of moneychangers at the temple.

really, do you think i am stupid? you are completely making things up out of thin air.

 

[Digital Watches]

That was... by far the funniest thing I've ever seen in the debate hall.

Seriously, F&V? Seriously?

But on to the part of your argument that at least takes on the appearance of not being entirely erroneous, since when is it a historian's job to disprove the Old Testament? If I were to write a completely nonsensical book about alleged events from thousands of years ago, could I demand proof from historians that my book didn't really happen? PROVE THAT THERE WERE NO SPACE DRAGONS! I DEMAND IT! This is why our legal system places the burden of proof on the prosecution. When one asserts something, they must have evidence. They cannot, without evidence, immediately demand disproof from those who would discredit their wild claims. A system in which that was acceptable would be insanity.

 

[Falco&Victory]

You said many events in the gospel were false. The gospel has several different meaning, among those are recollections of the old and new testament. What has been proven false in the bible? Nothing. However, some events have evidence and record to support them.

You know what, I can't believe we're still debating this. Neither side can win, we're just creating bad blood. I'll take AltF4Warrior's advice.

Some people attribute god as a meddler, some a creator, some non-existent. Others may see he is an entity that controls everything. There must be in one form or another a higher power. All that exists could not have come here from nothing, that breaks the laws of physics. Therefore, the laws of physics can't always have existed. What do you think created the universe? I go with god because there is, however disputable, more than 0% evidence to support his existence. So far he's winning.

Spoiler

Why would I argue against space dragons? Asserting the possibility of zero non-possibilities that follow the laws of physics I must ascertain that at some point in the universe space dragons may exist. The sack that ordinarily carries gas to be used for fire could easily be replaced by evolution to hold dioxide, and well all know that due to magic space dragons could use a minimal amount of oxygen(magic, of course, following the laws of physics. It is simply energy, which is easily manipulated by the dragon's body. Naturally, early people not understanding this termed it 'magic'.

 

[blazedaces]

There must be in one form or another a higher power. All that exists could not have come here from nothing, that breaks the laws of physics. Therefore, the laws of physics can't always have existed. What do you think created the universe?

You first say that it could not have come from nothing, and I would respond that it didn't need to come from anything, it could have always been.

You then jump and say that it can't always have existed... why not? Why did the universe need creating?!

-blazed

 

[Digital Watches]

Spoiler

Why would I argue against space dragons? Asserting the possibility of zero non-possibilities that follow the laws of physics I must ascertain that at some point in the universe space dragons may exist. The sack that ordinarily carries gas to be used for fire could easily be replaced by evolution to hold dioxide, and well all know that due to magic space dragons could use a minimal amount of oxygen(magic, of course, following the laws of physics. It is simply energy, which is easily manipulated by the dragon's body. Naturally, early people not understanding this termed it 'magic'.

Dude, you've just jumped from annoying...

Spoiler

TO ****ING AWESOME. I'm sorry for ever doubting you.

 

[AltF4]

Ahh, the old "the universe must have been created by SOMEONE" argument. Like I mentioned in another thread (what happened pre-Planck 1?) the universe did not necessarily need a creator.

The error in your reasoning is assuming that time is static. If you think of it that way, then you wind up asking the question "what happened at the moment of and before the big bang?". The question is unanswerable because it assumes something that is untrue.

It is much like ancient sailors asking "what happens when we reach the end of the earth?". Well there is no "end of the earth" because the earth isn't flat. It's curved. The same is true of time, it is not flat but curved. Curved in such a way that there was no moment of creation, and no moments before. There is no need for there to be a creator, because there was never any moment of creation. (for perhaps a more complete explanation, read "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking)

 

[Falco&Victory]

"According to some of the latest scientific theories, time began with the Big Bang"
That's from Wikipedia, I didn't actually look at the site it was sited from though. Without time, matter and energy can not move, react, etc. It takes an even of any kind for time to transpire, so if nothing was moving how could the big bang have occurred?

I have a question, if a black hole is created when a star is compressed to the size of an atom, why wasn't the entire universe, at the size of a marble or smaller, collapsing in on itself? Do any physics experts have a say on the matter?

 

[snex]

whatever made the big bang happen was much stronger than the gravity that was there.

in any case, our ignorance about the start of the big bang is not a hiding place for magic and gods. theists have been doing this for millenia, saying gods cause lightning, the sun rising, and tons of other things that science later explained. why do you think the limits of science today are any better for hiding gods than the limits of science 2000 years ago? ignorance is not a positive argument in favor of gods.

 

[AltF4]

Try to think of it like this:

Imagine watching a video recording of the universe going in reverse from this moment. Like going in rewind. You watch the earth and sun's formations, then either one or two (we're not sure yet) generations of previous stars that were here before us that we are made of now. Then you see the galaxy heat up and the matter in it glow very hot and small. Then more galaxies get closer and closer. Soon all the galaxies are starting to approach one another.

At this point, you'll notice something funny. As the matter gets more and more clumped, the space itself around it gets compressed. Not only that, but time slows down. The video on the tape will appear to slow down... slower and slower as all the matter in the universe gets closer and closer. But they will never actually meet. No matter how long you watch the tape, the universe will never reach the singularity, the moment of creation. Because there was no moment of creation. It will just keep going on endlessly approaching but never reaching the singularity.

 

[Skylink]

It is much like ancient sailors asking "what happens when we reach the end of the earth?". Well there is no "end of the earth" because the earth isn't flat. It's curved. The same is true of time, it is not flat but curved. Curved in such a way that there was no moment of creation, and no moments before. There is no need for there to be a creator, because there was never any moment of creation. (for perhaps a more complete explanation, read "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking)

That is not the way it is curved. And I read Stephen Hawking's book on it, and nothing like that is mentioned. Yes, spacetime is curved, and we imagine it as flat, but if you were to ask me what is north of the north pole, I would not be able to give an answer. But there is a north pole, a single point on the earth where there is no more north left to go to. The same is true with time. There was indeed a moment of creation, and the gravitational time dialation from the early universe does not mean there is no "north pole" to our universe.

 

[AltF4]

I was using the globe as an analogy to explain how two situations were similar. Time is not a globe, obviously. My analogy breaks down if you try to use it for any more than a step in the right direction.

And yes Hawking does talk about this, he even has this funny story to tell about it. If you don't recall it, then perhaps it's in another book by him. I would apologize for that. He was in the Vatican for a conference on physics a bunch of years back. The catholic church, having just accepted that they've been wrong about the whole "sun revolves around the earth" thing, invited a number of high profile scientists to inform them of any other issues in science the church would like to look in to. Hawking got a change to speak with the Pope (JP2 at the time) about his work regarding black holes and the big bang.

The Pope said that it was okay of Stephen to explore the events of how the universe formed, but told him not to inquire about the actual moment of creation, since that is god's work. Hawking didn't have the heart to tell the old man that he had just finished a conference where he demonstrated his theories on how the universe had no creation and therefore requires no creator. Too funny.

 

[Skylink]

I was using the globe as an analogy to explain how two situations were similar. Time is not a globe, obviously. My analogy breaks down if you try to use it for any more than a step in the right direction.

And yes Hawking does talk about this, he even has this funny story to tell about it. If you don't recall it, then perhaps it's in another book by him. I would apologize for that. He was in the Vatican for a conference on physics a bunch of years back. The catholic church, having just accepted that they've been wrong about the whole "sun revolves around the earth" thing, invited a number of high profile scientists to inform them of any other issues in science the church would like to look in to. Hawking got a change to speak with the Pope (JP2 at the time) about his work regarding black holes and the big bang.

The Pope said that it was okay of Stephen to explore the events of how the universe formed, but told him not to inquire about the actual moment of creation, since that is god's work. Hawking didn't have the heart to tell the old man that he had just finished a conference where he demonstrated his theories on how the universe had no creation and therefore requires no creator. Too funny.

I'm sure he is a nice man who would not blatantly try to offend anyone with his work, unlike a few people I may be able to name. And honestly, I have no problem with people studying the Big Bang. That's something I'm actually planning to do myself when I get in to and out of college.
Hawking didn't walk out of that confrence with even an ounce of proof against a creation. If, as his models show, that our universe had a extremely slow beginning, a quantum fluctation that concieved our universe, and the curvature of spacetime, then first of all, if there was a quantum fluctation that lead to the beginning of our universe, then the quantum laws had to be eternal, without cause, and therefore random, then it only leaves them subject to the fine tuned universe argument. The extremely slow primordal universe argument now doesn't hold water because we know that the universe had a cause.

 

[Digital Watches]

whatever made the big bang happen was much stronger than the gravity that was there.

in any case, our ignorance about the start of the big bang is not a hiding place for magic and gods. theists have been doing this for millenia, saying gods cause lightning, the sun rising, and tons of other things that science later explained. why do you think the limits of science today are any better for hiding gods than the limits of science 2000 years ago? ignorance is not a positive argument in favor of gods.

Actually, as far as I can tell, religions came into BEING mostly on the premise of explaining the unexplained phenomena of whatever time period it was. Therefore the very FOUNDATION of religion is essentially ignorance.

 

[Digital Watches]

If, as his models show, that our universe had a extremely slow beginning, a quantum fluctation that concieved our universe, and the curvature of spacetime, then first of all, if there was a quantum fluctation that lead to the beginning of our universe, then the quantum laws had to be eternal, without cause, and therefore random, then it only leaves them subject to the fine tuned universe argument. The extremely slow primordal universe argument now doesn't hold water because we know that the universe had a cause.

Sorry to double post, but...

The "fine tuned universe" argument will never hold water as far as I'm concerned. You've really yet to prove that our existance is really a special case. That physical constants had a chance of being different from the beginning, and that multiple, even infinite universes could not have appeared. I HATE to beat this dead horse of an argument over and over again, but despite some very good points of yours, you've yet to refute any of these possibilities, nor have you sufficiently proven that the possibility of a God is any more likely than any of the enormous amounts of solutions for the problem of how our universe came into being as it did.

 

[Skylink]

Actually, as far as I can tell, religions came into BEING mostly on the premise of explaining the unexplained phenomena of whatever time period it was. Therefore the very FOUNDATION of religion is essentially ignorance.

You have got to be kidding me.Religion comes into being when someone or a larege group of people think the've been or being spoken to by God, wheather or not they are, and they do what they feel they are being told to do. Religion may have seemed logical for earlier cultures to accept on this premise, but what you are saying is just spiteful emotionally charged spam.

The "fine tuned universe" argument will never hold water as far as I'm concerned. You've really yet to prove that our existance is really a special case. That physical constants had a chance of being different from the beginning, and that multiple, even infinite universes could not have appeared. I HATE to beat this dead horse of an argument over and over again, but despite some very good points of yours, you've yet to refute any of these possibilities, nor have you sufficiently proven that the possibility of a God is any more likely than any of the enormous amounts of solutions for the problem of how our universe came into being as it did.

Yes, DW, I know. This is definitly a very dead horse. I have convinced you that such possibiulities are unlikely, but it doesn't quite cut it. It shouldn't after all, as debaters we should be skeptical to radically different Ideas at first, but I am not a physicist. I don't even know if any physicist has come up with this answer yet. I admit that I cannot prove theese scenarios impossible, and this question will not be answered in this debate. But be aware, you have yet to give an once of reason to think such things could be true, and even if, it is quite likely that our incomplete scientific knowledge will be expanded quickly in the future with information about this.

 

[AltF4]

Skylink, of course he doesn't have proof. We have evidence and we have theories,like I've been saying for so long. He used evidence and produced a theory. You can't ever prove a theory.

What he did do however if denounce the argument "there must be a god, because the universe must have been created by someone". Which is why I brought this up to begin with. Hawking showed that it could be the case that the universe was never created, it just is. Since such a theory is consistent (as he showed), the argument just mentioned fails.

And you still don't seem to grasp that there was no time before the big bang. Sentences like "leading up to the big bang" are meaningless.

That thing about the pope was just a funny story I felt like sharing. I'll try to find the exact book it was in again for you.

EDIT: Also, the answer to the "finely tuned world" problem that you're having is the Anthropic Principal. Also, there are many consistent theories involving multiple universes that are alive today. Try looking up the "Many Worlds" interpretation to Quantum Mechanics for one.

 

[Digital Watches]

You have got to be kidding me.Religion comes into being when someone or a larege group of people think the've been or being spoken to by God, wheather or not they are, and they do what they feel they are being told to do. Religion may have seemed logical for earlier cultures to accept on this premise, but what you are saying is just spiteful emotionally charged spam.

I suppose I should revise "religion" to "religious mythology." As discussed in the "is religion beneficial" thread, these are separate things. I think the way I phrased that sounded different from what I meant it to sound like. What I meant was that religious mythology, such as the Adam and Eve story for the existance of mankind, any creation myth, and Apollo, God of the Sun, exist either to enforce the religious morality or to explain phenomena that could not otherwise be explained by modern science (at the time). Thus, given what snex said about "hiding God in ignorance," which would be more neutrally stated as "seeing God in unknowns," I simply mean to say that this is essentially one of the main purposes of religious myth. Since snex stated that this trend was essentially taking religion from ignorance, I found it appropriate to phrase it similarly, although I can see how this could be seen as somewhat slanted, and apologize for this misunderstanding.