The Existence of God (PG Version)

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Okay, so I saw this over at the DH, and I decided to recreate it here. I'll start with the thesis for my argument: God does not exist.

When you break it down, you get this: There's this book that tells us that there's being that created the earth, and can do anything and everything at once. If we believe the book, we go to some feeling of happiness. If we don't, we go to this place of lots of torture.

Sound a bit odd?


Also, there's the problem of activity. This guy in the sky does a bunch of things in 30 years, yet does nothing for the next 2000? Apparentley, he sent a guy to free slaves from Egypt. Why not send someone to free slaves from the south?

My third point is more like this: Has anybody actually have proof that god exists? For example, in the Dre vs. Salt thread, Dre won because salt provided no points on how god exists, and just countered Dre's arguments.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

If we don't, we go to this place of lots of torture that you can't find on a map (come on, hell has to be somewhere).

But seriously, from what I've seen from Dre. and "Salt," I think you have them on opposite sides. It seems that Dre. would argue FOR the existence of God, while Salt wold argue AGAINST. But idk. Real post coming later.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

You have officially made my day.

But seriously, from what I've seen from Dre. and "Salt," I think you have them on opposite sides. It seems that Dre. would argue FOR the existence of God, while Salt wold argue AGAINST. But idk. Real post coming later.

Salt's Shadokupo, in case you're wondering. Their debate is a thread in the DH. Read that.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Dark Horse, have you ever completed a book in the Bible?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I don't see how that helps your argument at all.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Actually, he/she/it does have a point. You gave a tl;dr version of the Bible which obviously comes from an ignorance about it. How extensive IS your knowledge of the Bible? (Note: saying "none" does not make you look dumb)

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Your interpretation of the Bible as indicated in your OP about the difference between heaven and hell as well as the book of Exodus with Moses freeing the Hebrew people from captivity are vague popularized assumptions of the nature of the Semitic deity.

Reading the entire Bible illuminates that there are many pagan themes such as child-sacrifice (Abraham to Isaac & -od to Jesus), archaic judgment (a single man chooses to plunder the remains after the fall of Jericho and -od punishes the whole tribe in order to find the thief), and sadism (the torture of Job and killing off his family.)

Arguing that -od doesn't exist because he should have freed slaves in the south assumes that an all-powerful and all-knowing -od (a) has the same relative moral values we uphold today, (b) loves us, and (c) operates on some level of "human" logic. These ideas run counter to the notion of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present -od who by divine nature would be difficult to understand or grasp in human terms due to the stipulated gap of intellect and existence between us.

If you're going to judge the existence of -od based on his behavior, then you should at least read the Bible in its entirety in order to know how "sick and twisted" the "Divine Creator" can be according to "modern" standards.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

God is an alien...

Hold on, I can support this.

Part 1 Ep.2
Part 2 Ep.2
Part 3 Ep.2
Part 4 Ep.2
Part 5 Ep.2
Part 6 Ep.2
Part 7 Ep.2
Part 8 Ep.2
Part 9 Ep.2
Part 10 Ep.2

Here you go there is support to my argument.

(No, I do not think god is an alien I am half joking but for chuckles and giggles I will be auguring this for most of the thread. Think devils advocate. It could be a possibility however.)

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Actually, he/she/it does have a point. You gave a tl;dr version of the Bible which obviously comes from an ignorance about it. How extensive IS your knowledge of the Bible? (Note: saying "none" does not make you look dumb)

3 years of CCD. Enough to kno most important parts.

 

[Sieguest]

My third point is more like this: Has anybody actually have proof that god exists? For example, in the Dre vs. Salt thread, Dre won because salt provided no points on how god exists, and just countered Dre's arguments.

As true as the statement is, you've drawn a bad conclusion from it. It's true I never put forward my own points as to why God exists and lost the debate due to that, but not because I couldn't put forward reasons. I just didn't think to do so, which is primarily why that debate was so short lived.

Anyway, trying to directly prove God's existence is nigh impossible. Instead, a way to go about it is to argue that it is impossible for a universe to exist without God. If you saw what I argued in the "Existence of God" thread against Bob Jane T-Mart, I did not try to say prove God's existence directly, but I tried to defeat his points implying that there could be a universe without God. In that way it would indirectly prove that God exists. But we ended up going in a giant circle.

EDIT: You also seem to be only bringing the Judeo-Christian God under fire here. What about the gods in other world religions? If someone of another religion saw this thread and read it, they'd think that you know nothing about their God and consequentially your whole point becomes invalid.

Double Edit:

But seriously, from what I've seen from Dre. and "Salt," I think you have them on opposite sides. It seems that Dre. would argue FOR the existence of God, while Salt wold argue AGAINST. But idk. Real post coming later.

Dre does argue for the existence of God, except in our 1v1 debate he was playing DA. And I in fact also argue for the existence of God, though I did a pretty bad job of it with my debate against Dre. I feel I did a much better job of it in the "Existence of God" thread in the DH.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

3 years of CCD. Enough to kno most important parts.

Again this has as much credence as telling you that I'm a scientist without bothering to back up my argument with research articles or scientific fact. There are tons of Christians and Catholics who know nothing about the Bible, just as there are tons of science majors who know very little about basic theories behind scientific origin: DNA-RNA world theory, Primordial Soup (Abiogenesis / Urey-Miller Experiment), and the Big Bang. Asserting your position by involving personal facts is poor debating because for all intents and purposes, there is no way for me to verify that (a) you're not a liar and (b) the quality of your information meets my expectations.

In fact the main problem with most Christianity / Catholicism is that many believers haven't read the Bible or Torah in its entirety and aren't comfortable with the material. Much of the belief's assumptions such as the idea that all sins are equal: from killing others to telling a lie, come from an interpretation of the Book of James and aren't stated word for word but have been interpreted by religious leaders who have taught a congregation a personal stance on the textual reading. People assume that all sins are equal because they don't know the origin of the verse, nor bother with the fact that they could have a differing opinion on the passage.

The opening post appears to be an ill construed bash on Christianity, "So there's this guy in the sky who sends people to hell and didn't send a giant ball of fire down to kill all the white American slave-owners in order to purge them." It doesn't seem to be a substantiated argument where you attempt to prove a point through a corporeal theory, but a personal rant that you decided to write in the Proving Ground. The fact that you didn't even bother to mention details or source from the Bible gives off the impression that you're just doing this for the hell of it rather than actually bothering to bring something to the table. I thought that the Proving Ground was a place where constructed debating occurs, not unsubstantiated critiquing. If you want to deconstruct the notion of -od then at least bring in some definition behind the debate prompt and a stance that isn't just, "Oh hey heaven / hell is silly and -od wasn't there when the slaves needed him!" Because I already touched on this point by bringing up conflicting behavioral characteristics in scripture.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Wow, my argument was clean ignored at least watch the video -_-.

 

[Sucumbio]

Acrostic has this.

Dragoon, you'd do better to do more than link to some vids. Tells us why you think those videos support YOUR position, not that you've borrowed your position from someone else.

God does not exist.

When you break it down, you get this: There's this book that tells us that there's this guy in the sky. If we believe the book, we go to some feeling of happiness. If we don't, we go to this place of lots of torture that you can't find on a map (come on, hell has to be somewhere).

Sound a bit odd?

Sounds terribly odd, almost preposterous. Thankfully, it's not what people believe.

Also, there's the problem of activity. This guy in the sky does a bunch of things in 30 years, yet does nothing for the next 2000? Apparentley, he sent a guy to free slaves from Egypt. Why not send someone to free slaves from the south?

Good point. Southern slave owners often cited that African slaves had no souls, and so were not children of god, but simply work horses, literal animals that could be bought, sold, mutilated, forced to work. How COULD God let this happen? Then again, how could he have let me stub my toe yesterday? It hurt really really bad. Think not of the acts of men as being God's fault. It's men's fault, and they shall be punished for it in the afterlife (and even sometimes on Earth, by other men.)

My third point is more like this: Has anybody actually have proof that god exists? For example, in the Dre vs. Salt thread, Dre won because salt provided no points on how god exists, and just countered Dre's arguments.

Of course not. If there was proof God existed, you wouldn't need faith to believe, it'd be as known as knowing the Earth is flat. Er... round.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Sounds terribly odd, almost preposterous. Thankfully, it's not what people believe.

It might not be what people believe, but it's a break down of christianity. I admit, maybe hell's location was a bit overkill.

Good point. Southern slave owners often cited that African slaves had no souls, and so were not children of god, but simply work horses, literal animals that could be bought, sold, mutilated, forced to work. How COULD God let this happen? Then again, how could he have let me stub my toe yesterday? It hurt really really bad. Think not of the acts of men as being God's fault. It's men's fault, and they shall be punished for it in the afterlife (and even sometimes on Earth, by other men.)

My point is, he sent somebody to free the slaves from egypt, yet he didn't send anybody to free slaves from the south.

Of course not. If there was proof God existed, you wouldn't need faith to believe, it'd be as known as knowing the Earth is flat. Er... round.

How does "faith" help justify an argument? We have proof that the world is flat round.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Dragoon, you'd do better to do more than link to some vids. Tells us why you think those videos support YOUR position, not that you've borrowed your position from someone else.

Ok, sure Though video's have evidence of aliens coming down to earth many years ago and thus starting a mythology of god's existence because to the ancients the aliens and the tech. where nothing short of god like. That is why god is an alien he/she is not literally an alien but the tech. of the alien race was like gods to the ancients.

 

[Sucumbio]

My point is, he sent somebody to free the slaves from egypt, yet he didn't send anybody to free slaves from the south.

God didn't send Moses. He gave Moses the task of leading his people out of bondage from Egypt. God DID send Jesus to Earth to die for our sins (according to the New Testament). Those are very different things.

How does "faith" help justify an argument? We have proof that the world is flat round.

Think of it like this. If you have to remind someone that it's your birthday, how meaningful is it when they then say "Happy Birthday!" It's far more meaningful if they remember of their own accord. The same can be said of God. Making the free-willed choice to believe in God is more meaningful to God, than if we were designed specifically to automatically worship him (as is the case with his Angels.)

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

It might not be what people believe, but it's a break down of christianity. I admit, maybe hell's location was a bit overkill.

I'm not sure if I changed the nature of the debate, however there is a difference between challenging the existence of an Intelligent Designer vs. a criticism on a religion that is intended to worship such a divine existence.

My point is, he sent somebody to free the slaves from egypt, yet he didn't send anybody to free slaves from the south.

I don't understand. I don't see African American slaves getting whipped in the middle of the streets, being rode on like donkeys, or working low wage manual labor jobs. In a discussion I had with rvkevin we were discussing about the acknowledgment of slavery in the Bible (Exodus 21:20). I honestly think that you're confusing -od for Abraham Lincoln. After all, this is the all-powerful entity that sent an angel down to kill 185,000 Assyrians (2 Kings 19:35 & Isaiah 37:36), the flood of Noah killed everyone except Noah and his family (Genesis 7:23), and as you like to keep on telling us... , he killed every first born Egyptian child (Exodus 12:29-30) which historians estimate to be at least one million people.

Therefore I guess you are right to a certain degree. -od does believe in equality, that is, everyone deserves the right to die by holy intervention.

Just because you care about slavery doesn't mean that -od has the same convictions and beliefs that we assume are "moral" and "good." For all we know, the divine creator could just be a sadist who enjoys watching people suffer. Therefore attempting to judge him based on things that you believe are "bad" is inaccurate as the Bible clearly shows that divinity does not always parallel humanity.

The problem here is that you've probably been taught that -od is a loving supreme divinity that always sheds a tear when people lose their jobs, die, or are victims of abusive dictatorships. Passages in the Bible show that -od is more pagan than modern Christians would like to admit.

Most Christians aren't very familiar with the Bible because it's still hard to believe it after you finish reading through it in its entirety. Most Christians don't want to consider that the reason why there is so much human suffering in the world is because -od stopped caring. The only reason why people choose to believe there is no -od rather than a heartless -od is because they can't fit it into their minds that their whole lives could be virtually worthless when it comes to a divine overlord who had never been on the same wavelength as humanity in the first place.

How does "faith" help justify an argument? We have proof that the world is flat round.

Faith is never substantial to justify an argument which is why Christians have realized that they need to substantiate their faith with articles of science. The most noticeable is the Creation Museum that has been built in Kentucky in order to seek a scientific basis to substantiate the existence of -od. Hopefully -od doesn't get angry and kill all of them for not relying explicitly on the power of faith like he did to 14,700 of his ordained Hebrew people (Numbers 16).

 

[Kirbyoshi]

@Dragoon: I'll admit, I haven't watched the vids. I'm relying on YOU to tell me your argument. How would aliens be that much more advanced than humans? I think that is the biggest proof against UFOs, but this is not a UFO thread, this is a thread about whether or not God exists. But whatever.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

@Acrostic: Have you been to the Creation Museum?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

@Dragoon: I'll admit, I haven't watched the vids. I'm relying on YOU to tell me your argument. How would aliens be that much more advanced than humans? I think that is the biggest proof against UFOs, but this is not a UFO thread, this is a thread about whether or not God exists. But whatever.

Why would they not be? With all the galaxies and solar systems some much older than earth why would there not be at least the possibility of visitors? If it is impossible than name the law of physics that say so. The video is on aliens visiting the ancient cultures of our world and influencing the course of history and mythology it is a history channel show. I recommend if you wish to continue the debate on "God" being an alien you should watch the video. The best way to do that is just to find time to set aside (I think it is a hour long video) an hour to watch it. As for the position I am saying let me say this I am saying that god does not exist but his mythology was created by aliens visiting the earth.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Where is your proof that there are "galaxies and solar systems much older than earth"? I thought that even the "Big Bang" loons believe that everything cosmological is basically the same age, and that everything has always been here.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@Acrostic: Have you been to the Creation Museum?

It's a little far away since I live in Jersey. To be honest I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to issues such as intelligent design and human origin as long as they are substantiated by facts or some sort of textual reference. I'm not ruling out the notion of intelligent design by one or many, but I'm also open to the idea that they never existed in the first place. I attend church because it's the only thing keeping my family together from having a nasty divorce. I don't mind going though. To be honest I don't think it's possible for me to ever know the truth about the origin of the universe and I doubt that finding out the answer is really what people want in the first place. Most people find religion because it gives them a community where they feel that they belong and there is nothing wrong with that. It's just bothersome when people criticize or advocate a point on something they know very little information about in the first place. That's the only thing that really bothers me when it comes to a conversation. I'm more intellectually interested in what humans have done so far in terms of pharmaceuticals, resource engineering, and other technical products.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Where is your proof that there are "galaxies and solar systems much older than earth"? I thought that even the "Big Bang" loons believe that everything cosmological is basically the same age, and that everything has always been here.

Not necessarily, all the materials used in the creation of the universe were made at the same time but not the planets or star system them selfs. Depending on the distribution of the matter different universes form at different rates thus how one solar system can be older than the other. This is not even taking into the account how stars will both create and destroy solar systems. (Also I do not believe in the big bang but pretend I do for the sake of debating.)

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Where is your proof that there are "galaxies and solar systems much older than earth"? I thought that even the "Big Bang" loons believe that everything cosmological is basically the same age, and that everything has always been here.

Doppler effect tells you. Also, the big bang has been proven to exist. I wouldn't call the people loony

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Doppler effect tells you. Also, the big bang has been proven to exist. I wouldn't call the people loony

If the big bang exist then we can presume that the universe had a creator as something had to trigger the explosion (cause and effect). If there is no big bang then we can presume that there is no creator, because there is no need to create something that is never created in the first place because it has always been there.

But I agree with dark horse calling some one a loon is rude.

Edit: Also Dark Horse it is impossible to prove that the big bang is real regardless how much evidence you have simply put short of time travel you can not say it happend without being there. You can have evidence that stacked up makes the probability 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
certain but the number will never ever be exactly 100% you just can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. I understand were you are coming from however and I am fine with that.

 

[Dre89]

When you break it down, you get this: There's this book that tells us that there's this guy in the sky. If we believe the book, we go to some feeling of happiness. If we don't, we go to this place of lots of torture that you can't find on a map (come on, hell has to be somewhere).
[/color]

Guy in the sky? Hell being a physical place?

Just curious, how much Catholic philosophy and theology have you actually read?

Judging by the fact you think God is supposed to be a 'guy in the sky', and still think Hell is actually a physical place, and not a state of being, I'm assuming next to none but I don't want to judge a book by its cover.

People who make bold statements like yours without having done any study generally lose all credibility in the debate immediately because they'e just shown they have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever.

There are tons of Christians and Catholics who know nothing about the Bible.

I'd say that at least 95% of people who call themselves Christians don't know anywhere near enough about their faith.

Dark Horse pretty much lost all credibiltiy in this debate with his OP when he assumed an attack on Christian theology somehow refutes God's existence, as if the only arguments for God's existence stem from Christian theology.

Also, Big Bang should have nothing to do with a God debate. Big Bang only refutes creationism, and considering only a minute percentage of Christian denominations advocate creationism, it's not relevant. No scientific theory is going to prove what existed before physical laws (space, time etc.), because science can't observe that which was before the medium through hwich we observe things (space and time), so it's a philosophical question.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

If the big bang exist then we can presume that the universe had a creator as something had to trigger the explosion (cause and effect). If there is no big bang then we can presume that there is no creator, because there is no need to create something that is never created in the first place because it has always been there.

My hypothesis is this: The molecules inside the "thing" kept expanding, until the "thing" couldn't hold the molecules. Then, KABOOOOM!!!!!

Everything has to start somewhere. It can't just have been there forever.

Edit: Also Dark Horse it is impossible to prove that the big bang is real regardless how much evidence you have simply put short of time travel you can not say it happend without being there. You can have evidence that stacked up makes the probability 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
certain but the number will never ever be exactly 100% you just can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. I understand were you are coming from however and I am fine with that.

*Facepalm* Cosmic background radiation is the proof. It's been proven to come from the big bang.

Guy in the sky?

Maybe "guy in the sky" was a bit overkill. Fine, "everything around us"

Hell being a physical place?

It is. Also, remember the apostle's creed? "He DESCENDED into hell.

There's also the fact that nothing about god has been proven by the bible, making it as nonfiction as the alex rider series (the locations exist, just not anything else has been proven to exist)

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Also, Big Bang should have nothing to do with a God debate. Big Bang only refutes creationism, and considering only a minute percentage of Christian denominations advocate creationism, it's not relevant. No scientific theory is going to prove what existed before physical laws (space, time etc.), because science can't observe that which was before the medium through which we observe things (space and time), so it's a philosophical question.

I understand that and I see your point, just let me finish this with dark horse and we can get back to the original topic of this thread.

My hypothesis is this: The molecules inside the "thing" kept expanding, until the "thing" couldn't hold the molecules. Then, KABOOOOM!!!!!

Everything has to start somewhere. It can't just have been there forever.

Show me the prof. (To the point, you can't.)

*Facepalm* Cosmic background radiation is the proof. It's been proven to come from the big bang.

Very well, here is my counter theory. I say that the laws of physics were completly different back then and it is there for impossible to know what happened, Some scientist theorize that the laws of physics are ever changing (I am citing scientific american can not find the exact article online though.) There is some evidence to support this believe it or not and most of this came from trying to explain the problems of the big bang.

Sure, the big bang is still the most likely option but my point is you can not prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Edit: Anything that can not be tested by the scientific theory will never be a science fact regardless how much evidence you have, this is one of the reasons that evolution , in spite of all the evidence behind it, is still to this day, a theory.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Show me the prof.

It's called a hypothesis.

As for proof why this might have happened, Fill up a ballon with helium. After a while, the ballon explodes. Same here, except the molecules are building up by themselves.

Very well, here is my counter theory. I say that the laws of physics were completly different back then and it is there for impossible to know what happened, Some scientist theorize that the laws of physics are ever changing (I am citing scientific american can not find the exact article online though.) There is some evidence to support this believe it or not and most of this came from trying to explain the problems of the big bang.

When do you mean "when the laws were different"? The big bang, thinking about the big bang, or discovering cosmic background radiation?

Sure, the big bang is the most likely option but my point is you can not prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Then explain where cosmic background radiation comes from.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

It's called a hypothesis.

As for proof why this might have happened, Fill up a ballon with helium. After a while, the ballon explodes. Same here, except the molecules are building up by themselves.

I want prof on that it did happened in the first place. Not prof on how it could of happened. Also you said yourself that it is a "hypothesis" and that my friend is WRONG. A hypothesis is a scientific theory that can be tested. Yes, there are test that can test how it Could happen but there is not a test in the world that will prove it happened, only evidence but not a test.

When do you mean "when the laws were different"? The big bang, thinking about the big bang, or discovering cosmic background radiation?

The answer changes based on who you ask. In a nut shell a different set of physics law are necessary in order to explain some aspects of the big bang HOWEVER if there are a totally different set of laws and we only have know a one or two of them that creates a huge problem. Why? because it creates indefinite possibilities and there for kills any certainty what so ever making something like that impossible to judge.

Then explain where cosmic background radiation comes from.

Point is that with a different set of laws back ground radiation could come from any where for all we know. Also See the argument directly above in this post.

 

[UltimateHaxor123]

Ok, since i feel that this debate has veered off into a more "Science vs. Religion" debate, i want to try to bring it back to a purely philosophical vs. theological one. On that note however, just because we prove the existence of certain theories such as the Big Bang or String theory, does not mean that we can rule out God's existence.

My third point is more like this: Has anybody actually have proof that god exists? For example, in the Dre vs. Salt thread, Dre won because salt provided no points on how god exists, and just countered Dre's arguments.

First, i'd like to point out certain proofs DO exist for the existence of god. People like St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas have been trying for centuries. Read for more info here http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

As compelling as these theories may sound, we have to acknowledge the other side. First let's look at the philosopher Nietzsche. The saying "God is dead" came from his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra (sorry if i misspelled that).

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

This nihilist philosophy (yea i know nietzche wasn't a nihilist) seems to suggest that instead of "God" instead being the traditional almighty father of heaven and earth, was more of the morality which the Christian Institution attempted to uphold. The phrase "God is dead" represents that Christianity was no longer a viable option. In this sense, "God" is synonymous with "Christianity".

On the topic of morality, let us examine the basis of religion. Personally (though religious people may disagree) I believe that the root of religion is synonymous with "Culture" and "Society". In order for the early people to maintain their Society and culture, some moral order was needed. Universal laws included the prohibition of killing, stealing, etc. because it benefited society. However, enforcing this was nigh impossible and thus religion was created in order to serve as a sort of ultimatum. Either you follow morality in this life, or pay for it in the next. In this case, it seems that Man created God and not the other way around.

Of course, there are multiple other logical proofs against God's existence such as the Omnipotence paradox (probably not one of the better ones but certainly one of my favorites because it stumps ppl) which (stated in laymen's terms) "Could god create a rock even he couldn't lift". This is a paradox because (for those of you that don't see it yet) if God could create a rock even he couldn't lift, that would mean he's no longer omnipotent because there is an action he can't do. However, if he can't create a rock even he couldn't lift, that would also mean he is not all-poweful for the same reason above. Though this does not really disprove God's existence entirely, it is meant to show people the logical inconsistency of an omnipotent entity.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Ok, since i feel that this debate has veered off into a more "Science vs. Religion" debate, i want to try to bring it back to a purely philosophical vs. theological one. On that note however, just because we prove the existence of certain theories such as the Big Bang or String theory, does not mean that we can rule out God's existence.

First, i'd like to point out certain proofs DO exist for the existence of god. People like St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas have been trying for centuries. Read for more info here http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

Thank you! A very interesting read, will come back latter with proper response.

 

[Dre89]

Dark Horse the Bible isn't supposed to prove God exists, it's supposed to be a source of relevation, it's essentially the tradition of the Church converted to Scripture.

Your proof of the Church is supposed to be examining the historical documents pointing towards the Church's infallibility.

 

[1048576]

For certain definitions of the word God, as in 'God is truth,' (lol) God is real. For other definitions 'God is the omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent creator of earth in 7 somehow metaphorical days,' God is not real. So what characteristics are we giving this God?

 

[vVv Rapture]

For certain definitions of the word God, as in 'God is truth,' (lol) God is real. For other definitions 'God is the omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent creator of earth in 7 somehow metaphorical days,' God is not real. So what characteristics are we giving this God?

That didn't make sense to me. How does the phrase, "God is truth," prove that God is real?

Also, we are speaking of the God itself, not the word God. There's a difference between what is referred to as "God" and what are defined as "gods."

 

[UltimateHaxor123]

That didn't make sense to me. How does the phrase, "God is truth," prove that God is real?

Also, we are speaking of the God itself, not the word God. There's a difference between what is referred to as "God" and what are defined as "gods."

lol, it makes perfect sense actually. He's (or she i'm sorry i don't know) talking about how people define "god". Some people accept that God is truth. The concept of truth is representative of God. Others (most christians) believe that God is an actual entity, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. In order to determine the existence of God, then we must first give parameters to what God actually is.

In my previous post, i assumed that we were debating the latter because it is a more common belief amongst most people of "faith". If we were to define god metaphysically (truth, knowledge, etc) then there would be little point in having the debate on the existence of god.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Also, the big bang has been proven to exist. I wouldn't call the people loony.

I do apologize about the "loony" quote, I was out of line, but I fail to see how that proves the Big Bang. Looks like some scientist came to that data with the assumption that the Big Bang happened, and blocked out all other possible causes. That's my final word on the Big Bang, as that's not what this topic is about.

Everything has to start somewhere. It can't just have been there forever.

This can be used as evidence against the existence AND the absence of God, and is therefore irrelevant.

Of course, there are multiple other logical proofs against God's existence such as the Omnipotence paradox (probably not one of the better ones but certainly one of my favorites because it stumps ppl) which (stated in laymen's terms) "Could god create a rock even he couldn't lift?"

Yes, because if He can do anything, He can also temporarily limit His power. See: Jesus.

 

[vVv Rapture]

lol, it makes perfect sense actually. He's (or she i'm sorry i don't know) talking about how people define "god". Some people accept that God is truth. The concept of truth is representative of God. Others (most christians) believe that God is an actual entity, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. In order to determine the existence of God, then we must first give parameters to what God actually is.

In my previous post, i assumed that we were debating the latter because it is a more common belief amongst most people of "faith". If we were to define god metaphysically (truth, knowledge, etc) then there would be little point in having the debate on the existence of god.

Okay, that makes more sense. I apologize, must have misinterpreted what you meant, but that does make sense.

 

[1048576]

Believing in God is similar to believing that invisible unicorns roam the Earth controlling gravity or that George Washington was a furry. There's no evidence to support either proposition that God is real or he isn't. That's the problem with unfalsifiable propositions. The reason it's rational to take the null hypothesis in the face of unfalsifiable hypotheses is so you don't give more weight to one of two equally valid, yet contradictory notions. For example, you can't believe that the uni-color pencil I'm using is blue and red at the same time.

 

[UltimateHaxor123]

Yes, because if He can do anything, He can also temporarily limit His power. See: Jesus.

Haha but if he can temporarily limit his power then that means for that split moment (or "frame" if i use smash terminology) then he is not able to lift that rock which renders him powerless. If you make the point that the mere moment is irrelevant, then that also means that he CANNOT create a rock even he couldn't lift. This paradox isn't necessarily trying to disprove the very existence of god, rather the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god.