deadend
Well-known member
Ding ding, we have a winner!
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Sinopia
- Start date
Ding ding, we have a winner!
worrywort
Well-known member
1. The Cosmological Argument
Every effect needs a cause, but, like a string of domino's, this chain cannot stretch back into the past forever or we would never reach today. It's impossible. Therefore there must have been a first cause to start the chain, and that cause must itself be uncaused.
Couple this with the Big Bang theory and we now know that the universe had a beginning. The universe is an effect itself that requires a cause. But the universe cannot cause itself to come into existence, therefore its cause must be something outside of the universe. Something non-natural.
Therefore there must exist an uncaused, non-natural, first cause.
2. The Teleological Argument
There are many varieties of this argument. My favourite is the argument from the fine-tuning of the universe. Our universe has been so finely tuned to support life that had any number of its physical properties differed by just one part in 10^10^[123] it would've rendered life impossible. Basically, the odds are absolutely astronomical that we should be here. Honest intuition would tell us that there must be some kind of super-intellect behind it all.
One common refutation is to argue that if it hadn't happened we wouldn't be around to notice it. But that would be like surviving a firing squad of a thousand trained marksmen against all odds then saying, "well I shouldn't be surprised. If I'd have died, I wouldn't be around to notice this incredibly improbable event"
Another refutation is the many universes theory, but a] there's practically no evidence for this, b] it leads to absurdities. i.e. if an infinite number of universes exist, then on some of those universes unicorns, fairies and flying spaghetti monsters must exist. And c] it's still counter-intuitive. If I got 4 aces, in a card game, hundreds of times in a row, then used the multiverse theory as my explanation, would you sit down at the table for another round?
3. The Moral Argument
Morality is either relative or objective, but you cannot hold a relative view without smuggling in an objective one at the same time. Many people say that morality is relative but I'm yet to meet a person who actually lives that way. Everybody behaves as though morality is objective, and if it is, then God is the most probable explanation.
For example, some say that morality is relative to individuals, that each person is entitled to decide for themselves their own values. But if this is true then it must be true for ALL people, therefore the value that individuals ought to be able to decide their own values, is itself an objective value.
4. The Prophetic Evidence
Almost a third of the Bible is prophecy, many of which are very specific, including names, dates, places and events. In just under 10 years of researching I'm yet to find a prophecy proven false. The Bible has a 100% accuracy record. In a book called "Science Speaks" a man called Peter Stoner estimated what the odds of just 11 of the almost 2000 prophecies coming true were, if written in human wisdom, and it came to 1 chance in 5 x 10^59. Even a hypercritical approach to the prophecies using the most stingy of estimates will still result in odds large enough to be conclusive.
5. My Own Experiential Evidence
This ones just for me!
Take all these arguments together and we have an intelligent, personal, uncaused, non-natural being that can accurately predict the future. I'd call this being God.
If anyone would like to respond, feel free, but if you'd like to debate I'd really rather we speak over PM. It gets too messy out here!
vj288
not actually Fiona Apple
the problem with pascal's wager is that only takes into account 1 religion, when in reality there are many many religions with different beliefs who believe in different gods and if any heaven exists you would have to choose the religion who's heaven actually exists, so what if i choose one religion but it turns out a different religion is right, wouldn't their god who is the only real one then get pissed off that i decided to believe in a different one? what if their god didn't actually care if i didn't believe in religion but did get angry for me believing in the wrong one? then believing in nothing would have been the safe bet and believing in the wrong religion would have damned me.
basically what i'm saying is that i dismiss pascal's wager as flawed. :
Yeah you're right, but he lived in France in the 17th century so his options were a little more limited. In order for it to work in the present I think it would need to be adjusted.
This is exactly what I meant by "Believe for all the wrong reasons." You did a much better job explaining it than I attempted before I gave up. You took the words out of my mouth and made them sound smart :
:.
Mickery
Well-known member
This is getting a little esoteric. God does not always require a logical argument - indeed, God may not observe any structure of logic that we are able to comprehend - but the arguments themselves are of human logic and can easily be accepted or rejected on that basis.
For instance, it may be accurate that the Universe is an immensely precise piece of unique machinery as the teleological argument describes, but the teleological argument itself is inaccurate. We do not know the nature of the Universe, but we know how odds are calculated and from that can prove that the reasoning is wrong even if the conclusion happens to be right.
The distinction between practical and philosophical logic is critical and to confuse the two ends up muddying the water of debate.
For instance, it may be accurate that the Universe is an immensely precise piece of unique machinery as the teleological argument describes, but the teleological argument itself is inaccurate. We do not know the nature of the Universe, but we know how odds are calculated and from that can prove that the reasoning is wrong even if the conclusion happens to be right.
The distinction between practical and philosophical logic is critical and to confuse the two ends up muddying the water of debate.
Last edited:
Anomaly
Well-known member
What's the distinction?
Mickery
Well-known member
For instance.
The statement that God is infinite cannot be proven true/false.
The reasoning that God is infinite can be proven true/false.
Anomaly
Well-known member
I hope what you're trying to show isn't contextually isolated to the case of God.
It is possible to disprove the statement that there exist married bachelors by pointing out a contradiction in terms. It is also possible to show any reasoning for accepting the statement to be faulty, whether by an error in the logic used to reach the conclusion (such as denying the antecedent), the premises themselves (such as equivocating various meanings of 'bachelor' the proponent of the argument may hold), or both.
I think the issue here is that, as you suggest, false premises may still have a true conclusion, and vice versa. However, the point here is that the argument fails to lead us to the conclusion. Our epistemic limitation as finite beings may prevent us from having the power of omniscience, but we do our best by striving for reasoned beliefs.
Last edited:
caringsoul
Banned
God gives me hope even if no one wants to be your friend, i trust that God will always be there for you. Hes the only friend i have.
hoddesdon
Well-known member
I found this on another thread, posted by LA Girl:
...the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000 times) too small or too young to permit life to be assembled by natural processes.
Researchers, who are both non-theists and theists and who are in a variety of disciplines, have arrived at this calculation.
Invoking other universes cannot solve the problem. All such models require that the additional universes remain totally out of contact with one another; that is, their space-time manifolds cannot overlap. Thus the only explanation for how living organisms received their highly complex and ordered configurations is that an intelligent, transcendent Creator personally infused this information.
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...ewproofs.shtml
...the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000 times) too small or too young to permit life to be assembled by natural processes.
Researchers, who are both non-theists and theists and who are in a variety of disciplines, have arrived at this calculation.
Invoking other universes cannot solve the problem. All such models require that the additional universes remain totally out of contact with one another; that is, their space-time manifolds cannot overlap. Thus the only explanation for how living organisms received their highly complex and ordered configurations is that an intelligent, transcendent Creator personally infused this information.
Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...ewproofs.shtml
N0D
Banned
your link doesn't work
In this lecture he partially refutes your claim, it is completely possible for life to get to the point we are at within the amount of time we've had, without any design. However I do not think he addresses how life began from non-life, actually he does very briefly in response to a question at the end but it's very unsatisfying.
YouTube - Richard Dawkins Speaking at Duke University, Oct 3, 2010
Ransfordrowe
Well-known member
That is probably one of the most important questions,that humans have been pondering for centuries.The logical part of me says of course there is no God.The more ilogical part of me says maybe there is something out there that we dont fully understand that could be classed as a Deity. Its not an easy question to answer but its an interesting one.
Iam.myhair
Member
I have never doubted the existance of God. If I ever did turn away from Him, It would be me AGAINST Him (meaning I still would believe in Him)... (not that I would ever turn away.. I was just using an example)
He is real. He listens to prayers. He answers them in His time.
Can He cure SA? If Jesus Christ could cure blind men and people with leprosy.. I'm pretty sure He could make it easier on you to go out and enjoy yourself. Ask Him to help you. Have FAITH though. don't just ask to be "asking" just to see if He will "handle it for you".
you have to help yourself as well and God will help you through people and possibley through medication. He will lead you to the right people and then right meds.
Life is much too valuable and detailed to be an accident (such as a "big bang")
think about it.
He is real. He listens to prayers. He answers them in His time.
Can He cure SA? If Jesus Christ could cure blind men and people with leprosy.. I'm pretty sure He could make it easier on you to go out and enjoy yourself. Ask Him to help you. Have FAITH though. don't just ask to be "asking" just to see if He will "handle it for you".
you have to help yourself as well and God will help you through people and possibley through medication. He will lead you to the right people and then right meds.
Life is much too valuable and detailed to be an accident (such as a "big bang")
think about it.
Littlewilly
Well-known member
Yeh! I do despite all that's going on & around these days.
But my brother-in-law don't.
He don't even believe the story of Jesus ever happened.
He just says that someone back in that era had some kind of gift to be able to control the gift of life or death along with strange or overwhelming powers.
But my brother-in-law don't.
He don't even believe the story of Jesus ever happened.
He just says that someone back in that era had some kind of gift to be able to control the gift of life or death along with strange or overwhelming powers.
B
Beatrice
Guest
God will help you through medication?
Why would he make you go through all the trouble of finding which medication works best, if any, with all the potential awful side effects, if he could just as easily cure you himself? Or at the very least tell you which medication would in fact work best?Actually, if he hadn't made you this way in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue! So he made you socially anxious for whatever reason, only to put you through all this hell to help you?
Last edited:
The field of quantum mechanics disagrees with the above points.
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube
pinata
Well-known member
I didn't used to believe in God until I was about 16, but then I didn't really know what to make of it all, but I just knew (or thought I knew) there was something out there, but I wasn't religious. I've been depressed since I was about 14 and resented the world and all the suffering.. Belief in God made me think we had a purpose and everything, though a couple of months ago I was feeling particularly depressed and couldn't believe that God wouldn't want to stop all the evil that was going on.
But a couple of weeks ago I actually became a Christian. I still have a lot to learn about the faith but my life has honestly changed. I still get depressed but it's not nearly so bad. It has helped me a lot! I can't even tell you.
I don't know why we have all these faith versus science arguments. There are a lot of scientists who believe in God, it all goes hand in hand really, it's not either/or. I'd go back to being miserable if I said to myself there was no God or no reason for being here, so even if I'm wrong I'm living in blissful ignorance lol. We're only humans you know, we can't predict somebody else's actions and the weathermen often get the weather wrong, so how are we ever going to know the exact truth? :]
But a couple of weeks ago I actually became a Christian. I still have a lot to learn about the faith but my life has honestly changed. I still get depressed but it's not nearly so bad. It has helped me a lot! I can't even tell you.
I don't know why we have all these faith versus science arguments. There are a lot of scientists who believe in God, it all goes hand in hand really, it's not either/or. I'd go back to being miserable if I said to myself there was no God or no reason for being here, so even if I'm wrong I'm living in blissful ignorance lol. We're only humans you know, we can't predict somebody else's actions and the weathermen often get the weather wrong, so how are we ever going to know the exact truth? :]
v_coccotti
Well-known member
Interesting post, but you shouldn't need to rely on religion/god or any outside source for self assurance. It's good that your're feeling better and I don't want to offend you, but that chances of god even existing (the christian definition of it) is reducing every day. You should watch the movie "Religulous".