Arguments for or against god

[Samael_Khan]

We dont dont construct things by blowing them up, thats deconstruction. Following the known history if the universe from superheated plasma one can see how it formed into the place we know and love.

I too am lost on the maths.

I see that. But that doesn't mean that any one of those theories is actually how it happened as we have no way of showing what is the truth. Which is why I will still be agnostic about the issue.

It seems like one would have to be really knowledgeable about math and science to figure these theories out though.

 

[Neutral Name]

From my part I again claim that I do not believe in God.
I know Him.
An invention from some primal need to have a defender against the unknown animal that wants to attack me out from bushes?
I never had such an urge, and I think anyone accusing me of believing in a God with those reasons, are iactually gnorant to what they are doing.
They created a strawman thinking this is what I believe in, then they burned the object thinking they proven me wrong!
It is hilarious!
To also tell me that God is an invention by man such as fairies and unichorns, is also just as absurd and such reasoniing makes me wonder about the Atheist, or non Theists intellect.
Do they realy think I will worship some figment of my immagination?
or some fearfull defender against the darkness?
John Lennox puts it so clear in his debate with Richard Dawkins when Dawkins told Lennox that God is an invention for people who is afraid of the dark.
Lennox answered, and denial of God is an invention by Atheists for fear of the Light!

An invention?
How dare the Atheist accuse me of such stupidity?
I studied the Bible, the Quran, babdiva, Ghita, Book of Mormon, JW's publications spanning about 30 years, the Quran, the Hadith (X4), Upanishad, and many more.
I read more than 100 books on Archaeology, and as many on history. I collected thee books, and much more on philosophy, and religion.
I have books on the Atheist publications on all the errors, contradictions, and atrocities in the Bible, and all the books published by the IPCI from Ahmad Deedad.
And much more.

Now why did I doo this?
Why all the reading and studies?
Because I was an Atheist who called myself out of cowardice and agnostic, who needed to find out what the Truth holds.
I went into the Bible to destroy it and the Christian, and came up as a looser.
I tested the Quran, the Book of Morman with the exact critisizm I had against the Bible, and they were the loosers this time.

Sorry to all Atheists and Muslims and who so ever wants to critisize the God of the Bible.
He is not something to believe in, one can not believe in your chils' existance...
No, the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ, is one you can personally meet.
I dont believe in God anymore, I know Him personally.

Oh, I forgot my glasses at home, I might be making terrible mistakes in my posts, but see it as some puzzle to get solved.

Then why do so many Christians disagree with each other? Why are there so many denominations? Why aren't Protestants Catholic still? Why did Martin Luther remove books from the Catholic Bible when the Bible states not to remove books? How can the Bible be the inerrant word of God when there are two or more versions (more than two if you include other countries with their versions)? How can Christians argue as to whether there is a trinity or unity only when they are reading the same books and letters? And on and on and on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do so many put themselves into arguments about a god when in reality a god existing can't be proven or disproven, the best answer is unknown.

If this is really your position, it's much more anti-religion than anything I've ever heard from any self-described atheist.

If you say that the existence of a god can't be proven or disproven, then you're implying that every god-claim is baseless and every argument for a god is necessarily false.

This goes well beyond the typical atheist position of "I'm not convinced."

 

[Samael_Khan]

Then why do so many Christians disagree with each other? Why are there so many denominations? Why aren't Protestants Catholic still? Why did Martin Luther remove books from the Catholic Bible when the Bible states not to remove books? How can the Bible be the inerrant word of God when there are two or more versions (more than two if you include other countries with their versions)? How can Christians argue as to whether there is a trinity or unity only when they are reading the same books and letters? And on and on and on.

About those apocryphal books:

The reason why they should be left out of the old Testament is because the Jews don't view them as scripture, and they come from the Jews.

Also, it isn't the Catholics who have different books added to the Bible. I think the Eastern Orthodox have even more books.

 

[leroy]

No because that is not what has happened. Life evolved here because the conditions were present for life to evolve were here. They could have been elsewhere, other conditions might sustain different life, and finally no life would have worked out to the same probability. When you arbitrarily pick one thing and then ask what are the chances of this exact thing happening you are inevitably dealing with an infinitesimally small probability. However once that thing occurs the probability of it having occurred is 100%.

You don't seem to understand the implications of not having a FT universe.

For example if we make gravity .0001% stronger the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole shortly after the big bang.

So it is no like some other life could would have evolved.

No that is completely untrue. Any universe with our physics would need to start in a lower state of entropy than that same universe would be in later.

However you need to explain why did the universe started in a state of low entropy. ... It could have started in a state of high entropy only to evolve in a stated of even higher entropy.

No. Every pattern is equally likely/unlikely.

However it is still a fact that you would assume that a set of 10000 dice all facing 6 was caused by a designer.


Evolutionists use the same type of logic when comparing the chimp and the human genome, they note that it is very unlikely for humans and chimps to share the same genetic markers by chance and hence they provide an explanation for such similarities (common ancestor)

It would be stupid to say " hey that pattern is as unlikely as any other pattern, therefore it happens by chance"

 

[ChristineM]

I see that. But that doesn't mean that any one of those theories is actually how it happened as we have no way of showing what is the truth. Which is why I will still be agnostic about the issue.

It seems like one would have to be really knowledgeable about math and science to figure these theories out though.

Correct, at present they are all hypothesis.

There are some on here can follow the maths, i just gave to go by the explanations if it gets too heavy, maths is not my subject by a long way

 

[David1967]

Is there anything that puts any of them above the others or seprates them besides opinion?

I think that if a person is kind and tolerant of others of different or even lack of faith, that puts them far above others who use their faith or lack of faith as an excuse to be mean to others.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Correct, at present they are all hypothesis.

There are some on here can follow the maths, i just gave to go by the explanations if it gets too heavy, maths is not my subject by a long way

Same here. Waaaaay over my head.

 

[leov]

I won't be duped into arguments against a god or for a god. It's either a belief, lack of a belief, unknown or don't care.

Some argue on faith, some argue on lack of belief, some argue for the sake of arguing it seems.

Why do so many put themselves into arguments about a god when in reality a god existing can't be proven or disproven, the best answer is unknown.

Is there a satisfaction, a gradification, an agenda, a self point, an anything that I'm missing?

I've seen militant atheists, militant christians, militant who really cares, etc. and they all will beat their opinions around all day long. Is there anything that puts any of them above the others or seprates them besides opinion?

Just another fishing expedition seeking what others think.

Some were indoctrinated that God wants them to witness God in the world. It is a misunderstanding resulting in more misunderstanding and sometimes positive results.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What is that Evidene against God,? and why do you think the evidence for God that is typically provided (Kalam cosmological argument, fine tuning argument, moral argument, evidence for the resurrection etc.) Is not sufficient enough to out the balance on the theist side?

All the philosophical arguments appear contrived (to me at least, but my philosophical reading was done many decades ago). The fine-tuning argument is just a bit messy, given that we might use this for so many other things, and the fact that much in nature just appears to exist for no apparent purpose (other than having evolved). I'll admit I just don't have the scientific knowledge to query the cosmological constants and such. The existence of the Earth too, seems more like a happy accident rather than being designed for our purpose - given that we know a lot more now about such things than we ever did. True that it is very convenient that we seem to inhabit the Goldilocks zone, but we just don't know how common this actually is - not yet - but we do know that almost certainly every star we see does have planets, and many could be much like Earth.

The moral argument I just cannot accept since we do have so much in common with other species and they too often exhibit forms of morality - hence by a bit of common sense - morality has probably existed in some form in our earlier ancestors. And an objective morality in some form also seems not likely. We seem to have evolved our morality in order to survive.

All religious texts (for me) might have certain truths, but defying the laws of nature put them into the suspect category - with extraordinary claims seemingly used to impress others. As remarked by others in this thread, humans are just so likely to do this - with others being so vulnerable to accept such things - that I'm afraid they must just remain in the category - postulated or claimed.

I do believe in having a consistent view of existence, and having lived long enough (over 70), I haven't come across anything that has shifted my lack of belief in such things. I didn't have a particularly religious upbringing I will admit, but although I can respect the teachings of various faiths, the edifice that each religion has built over the years hasn't impressed me such that I feel I cannot confront them or dismiss them - as being entirely truthful or factual at least.

I'm slightly agnostic as to the existence of a creative force but only a little.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

I won't be duped into arguments against a god or for a god. It's either a belief, lack of a belief, unknown or don't care.

Some argue on faith, some argue on lack of belief, some argue for the sake of arguing it seems.

Why do so many put themselves into arguments about a god when in reality a god existing can't be proven or disproven, the best answer is unknown.

Is there a satisfaction, a gradification, an agenda, a self point, an anything that I'm missing?

I've seen militant atheists, militant christians, militant who really cares, etc. and they all will beat their opinions around all day long. Is there anything that puts any of them above the others or seprates them besides opinion?

Just another fishing expedition seeking what others think.

What can be proven and known, are how we are programmed and by a deep reflection of knowing ourselves better. Whether it’s by nature or of a powerful entity(s) that wrote the script and programmings. The more and deeper we know and discover ourselves, the more we become aware that a lot of those programmings are disturbing and vile, harmful to ourselves and others. While some are decent. And we can can learn to re-write or modify some of those programmings.

Either way, I’ll be personally damned if I allow anything that could be in my power to control to have it ways with me and control me. Whether it be through any fear, jealousy, bad temper, whatever else triggers inside of me that I am victim to and don’t want to be victim to. I’ll go to battle and fight inside. Particularly harmful garbage to anyone else or anything. If I’m pissing off a vile god that coded me with rotten junk by overcoming that rotten junk, then I would personally love nothing more. If I’m just shedding some vile nature that came naturally and from no entity, then it’s still beneficial for myself and for others. Either way, win win.

And yes, a lot of that junk programming comes with arguing with others over the stupidest and most futile things. That programming too can be pissed right off and destroyed.

 

[sayak83]

I won't be duped into arguments against a god or for a god. It's either a belief, lack of a belief, unknown or don't care.

Some argue on faith, some argue on lack of belief, some argue for the sake of arguing it seems.

Why do so many put themselves into arguments about a god when in reality a god existing can't be proven or disproven, the best answer is unknown.

Is there a satisfaction, a gradification, an agenda, a self point, an anything that I'm missing?

I've seen militant atheists, militant christians, militant who really cares, etc. and they all will beat their opinions around all day long. Is there anything that puts any of them above the others or seprates them besides opinion?

Just another fishing expedition seeking what others think.

Its part of the growth process for many people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I like your enthusiasm but not your analogy. We know the earth rotates, can test it, can see it, can calculate its speed, etc.

None of the above for a god.

It depends what you mean by know. But that is a derail into global skepticism, so only take it, if you want to.

 

[We Never Know]

If this is really your position, it's much more anti-religion than anything I've ever heard from any self-described atheist.

If you say that the existence of a god can't be proven or disproven, then you're implying that every god-claim is baseless and every argument for a god is necessarily false.

This goes well beyond the typical atheist position of "I'm not convinced."

A god cannot be proven or disprove. As an atheist I go with its unknown.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A god cannot be proven or disprove. As an atheist I go with its unknown.

And as a deist, I go with that is unknown.

 

[Neutral Name]

About those apocryphal books:

The reason why they should be left out of the old Testament is because the Jews don't view them as scripture, and they come from the Jews.

Also, it isn't the Catholics who have different books added to the Bible. I think the Eastern Orthodox have even more books.

Exactly. As I said, there are many versions. Which one is the inerrant word of God? I'm sorry, Israel, I'm not trying to pick on you. You are one of my favorite posters and, obviously, a good person. I just want the truth out. And I actually knew that the Apocryphal books were not part of Jewish scripture but the early church did include them in the Bible. So, I wanted to see what the Christians would say about that.

 

[We Never Know]

It depends what you mean by know. But that is a derail into global skepticism, so only take it, if you want to.

Does know in the form I used it mean something else?

 

[We Never Know]

Its part of the growth process for many people.

And non-growth process for some.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@We Never Know

This is not for or against God, but rather what most humans have in common. They are not solipsists and believe that there is something outside the individual mind and that there are other minds and a world.
When you then check this out:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.

William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.. p. 2.

Then add a Boltzmann Brain and all the variants in philosophy and popular culture, you get the following when combining with the certainty in some religious humans.
Most people taken for granted that the world, what ever it is metaphysically, is fair and that we can trust the world in that we can trust our reasoning and senses.
Strip away all the variables and that is what you can say about what God is to humans, whether natural or supernatural.
The world is fair and we can trust the world, in that we can trust our reasoning and senses.
The joke is that we project human words onto the world; fair and trust.

 

[We Never Know]

There are no arguments against the highest.

Psalm 53:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God!”

Yet not everyone has faith and believes that. Many do though. I haven't seen any evidence for a god to give me any reason to accept that.