• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tell me why God doesn't exist, and I'll tell you why your'e wrong.

savagewind

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Arrgh. It's like we're speaking different languages.

When you talk about how the universe isn't "lacking" anything, I take this to mean something like "the universe has everything it needs to be the way it's supposed to be." Is this what you mean?
Click to expand...

The universe has everything it needs to be. Yes. I do not know how the universe is suppose to be so I'm not saying that.

So the things the universe has the universe has 'learned' to need them. That is one way of looking at it.

But that makes no sense to me.
 
savagewind

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thermal energy, thermal energy in transit is called heat
Chemical energy
Electric energy
Radiant energy, the energy of electromagnetic radiation
Nuclear energy
Magnetic energy
Elastic energy
Sound energy
Mechanical energy
Luminous energy
Mass (E=mc²)

These things cooperate all the time. Is there anything missing? How could there be? Because the universe has been sustained for billions of years there is nothing missing.
That is what I am saying. There is nothing missing

Thank you for keeping on trying.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I really don't understand your point. Matter and energy interact... I get that. What I don't get is the leap you take from that to God.

You say that the universe isn't lacking anything. To me, "lacking" (in the sense you seem to be using the term) implies being deficient with regard to a purpose: if I have $10 in my pocket and I want to take a cab that costs $20, then I'm "lacking" $10. However, if I'm happy to walk, then I'm not "lacking" anything at all. That's what I was getting at before: when you say that the universe isn't lacking anything, this suggests to me that you have something in mind for what the universe is supposed to be doing... but you say that this isn't what you mean.
 
savagewind

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's suppose to stick together and endure. It's doing that. LOL. Karma owes you a good day. I have enjoyed our chat. You have so many frubals I hate to give you another one. Oh what the heck....
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Since you're getting pretty agressive already and, IMO, on your way to hostile, I don't think things bode well in that department.

Back to your original challenge, for me it's not so much that I argue for the non-existence of God as much as I argue other things:

- the god-beliefs we see around us are better explained by psychological and socio-cultural effects than they are by interaction between humanity and a god or gods.

- I have yet to find a good reason to conclude that a god or gods exist... or even that they're likely to exist.

- I think that as a general rule, it's not a good idea to accept claims without having good reason to accept them.
Click to expand...

Sure the one true attributive creator God has been interaction with humans and talking to the prophets messengers; like He talked to Muhammad, one of them and we have Quran- Word from Him, in my opinion.
 
Debater Slayer

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
I don't agree with you; one must believe in Him, in my opinion. Science is not be all and end all of life.
Click to expand...

What do you think obligates people to believe in any given deity if not for evidence? People don't usually accept claims without evidence, so how is it fair to expect them to accept universal metaphysical claims in the absence of clear supporting evidence?

As for the 'randomness' argument — which has been brought up again in this thread — I believe I have answered this not long ago, so I'll just repost my counter-argument:

I don't think that all structures that we perceive to be 'complex' necessitate design. It may be intuitive to think so, but I don't believe that it has to be the case all the time.

As an example of that, imagine the placement of pebbles on a beach. For the sake of argument, let's pick an arbitrary number of pebbles to work with: 124,000.

If the beach had enough space for exactly 124,000 pebbles and the sea waves moved them so that each pebble ended up in a certain location, the probability that a single pebble end up in its given place is 1/124,000. At first glance, this may seem like a very improbable event that was influenced by an outside force(s) (or designed, in the case of the scenario in the OP), but the sea waves' motion, along with other factors that might have led to such placement of pebbles, is random. The sea isn't sapient or even sentient, so such placement is entirely unplanned.

So while the probability that each pebble lay in its specific location is 1/124,000, the probability that it will lay somewhere on the beach once it is on solid ground is 1. It will certainly end up at a point there if it reaches the shore, which means that an event perceived to be very unlikely (e.g. with a 1/124,000 chance of occurring) is certain to happen if enough coincidences take place — such as the pebbles merely reaching the shore.

I believe it is possible to think of certain occurrences in the universe the same way: it might seem counter-intuitive for them to happen spontaneously or in a random manner, but a totality of said improbable events is certain to happen, much like the placement of pebbles on the beach as in the example above.
 
Last edited:
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
I don't agree with you; one must believe in Him, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
But how can you answer the question "why should we believe in God?" without using logic? How do you know your answer is correct if it's not testable?

paarsurrey said:
Science is not be all and end all of life.
Click to expand...
That depends on what sense you mean for "science". If you're talking about people wearing lab coats playing with test tubes, then sure... that's not the only way to learn about things. However, if you're talking about the larger idea of learning about how things work by making valid inferences from tests and observations - and in the context here, where you were responding to Gjallarhorn's post about logic and testability, it seems like you are - then science is the only valid way of acquiring knowledge about the physical world.
 
ericoh2

ericoh2

******
9-10ths_Penguin said:
That may very well be, but if you're going to stick your God in that "unexplored" region, then this means that it's unreasonable to make claims about him (e.g. that he exists).


I disagree about your claim about the nature of "proof".

And how does it matter how much I've searched? Regardless of how much I've looked, I haven't found anything that points to God. If you're going to argue that if we keep on looking, we will find this, then you're just making baseless supposition. Right here and right now, I've seen no indication of the truth of any god-claim, so the proper thing to do is to not accept those claims for the time being. I should be prepared to re-examine this decision (as I should on any issue), but it's a bad idea to make assumptions about what evidence I might encounter until I encounter it.


What does this have to do with what we're talking about?

... and what does God have to do with love? My godless life has lots of love in it and very little fear.
Click to expand...

If your life has "lots of love," then it is not a "godless" life. "God" has nothing to do with what you believe or don't believe. The concept of needing to believe in a god to be saved is all nonsense but of course the typical understanding of what god is, is also nonsense.
 
Last edited:
TashaN

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sir Doom said:
Listen, I am not the type of fella to pass up a chance to tell someone they are wrong. But your title suggests that anyone who doesn't believe can't possibly have a good reason for it. This is just asking to be ridiculed. You can pretend that you need other people's answers for research if you like, but it sounds a lot more like you need to tell them they are wrong as some sort of defense mechanism. This is often the case when people find themselves doubting their own beliefs. This is what your thread sounds like to me. I imagine I'm not the only one. If you intended to come off like an insecure jerk looking for a genital-measuring contest, then you have succeeded. I actually believe in god and I'm here to argue with you. Think about that.
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top