-
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!
Looking for arguments for the existence of God
- Thread starter Rorschach
- Start date
DarkSun
:eltiT
Yes I am. I've never denied it. Quite the opposite, actually.
I'm going to have to stop "arguing" with you. I agree with you and I always have. I have no idea how you've been interpretting me, but I think that I've been pretty clear.
Go back two pages and read everything that I've said. It might clarify this a bit.
Ciao.
I'm going to have to stop "arguing" with you. I agree with you and I always have. I have no idea how you've been interpretting me, but I think that I've been pretty clear.
Go back two pages and read everything that I've said. It might clarify this a bit.
Ciao.
Ok, first you have to realize this falls under philosophy not religion if you want a valid argument. If you try to approach the existence of God with religion or with religious text you will fall flat on your face and lose hands down because these arguments are from personal bias and faith you need a logical, a scientific and formulated argument.
Here are some of the arguments that are worthy of such a debate, your going to have to do some web searching but there is tons of this stuff to keep you busy for years.
I just would like to say as a disclaimer that I do not agree with any of these arguments nor do they provoke me to even consider them for more than 5 minutes, then again I teach philosophy and I am highly opinionated, a bit unreasonable, quite self righteous, egotistical, pretentious and pompous in this matter.... good luck have fun.
Arguments for the existence of God
Pascal's Wager
The Ontological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleolgical Argument
The Moral Argument
Religious Experience (be very careful with this one)
The Argument from Miracles (be careful with this one too)
God's intrinsic probability; which will bear on the degree of suspicion with which we view the purported theistic proofs
Reformed Epistemology; which holds that belief in God can be rational even if it cannot be supported by evidence.
Here are some of the arguments that are worthy of such a debate, your going to have to do some web searching but there is tons of this stuff to keep you busy for years.
I just would like to say as a disclaimer that I do not agree with any of these arguments nor do they provoke me to even consider them for more than 5 minutes, then again I teach philosophy and I am highly opinionated, a bit unreasonable, quite self righteous, egotistical, pretentious and pompous in this matter.... good luck have fun.
Arguments for the existence of God
Pascal's Wager
The Ontological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleolgical Argument
The Moral Argument
Religious Experience (be very careful with this one)
The Argument from Miracles (be careful with this one too)
God's intrinsic probability; which will bear on the degree of suspicion with which we view the purported theistic proofs
Reformed Epistemology; which holds that belief in God can be rational even if it cannot be supported by evidence.
This is what happens when you don't use punctuation.
Consciousness is the one thing we, as conscious beings, shouldn't have to excuse.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Logically, every effect needs a cause, but not every cause needs a cause.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
I agree. Did I say otherwise?
BucephalusBB
ABACABB
Rules/laws/patterns/physics..
Like that we knew that when an apple falls out of a tree and "made" those rules so that we could calculate exactly when the apple would hit the ground....
Ex/implosions have those rules as well, but it's not that easy yet to discover what actually happened about milions of years ago. :sarcastic
The difference between the force behind the big bang and gravity is that we can "see" gravity.
And what was there before the big bang? I don't know. But I won't replace that "I don't know" with "god"..
DarkSun
:eltiT
Yes, it is hard to date back that long, but it's not impossible.
Before I defend the theory, I might clarify a few things.
At this moment in time, many Scientists has actually affirmed the Big Bang theory to be correct. It's the theory that we're taught at school.
But put simply, it's implications are incredibly paradoxical.
I'll keep everything basic.
It is said that the Universe originated as a cloud of neutrons, but before this there were gluons and whatnot. We'll skip that.
=P
These nutrons gradually became compressed over trillions of years, became unstable, all before a massive explosion ensued. This is called the Big Bang Theory.
The rest is history. If you want to know more about it, just look up stellar nucleosynthesis.
That's the theory as it stands.
So here's me defending it.
Before I do I just thought I'd let you know that a theory, in scientific terms, isn't like:
"Hey, I have this theory on how the horse races are gonna end"
It's more a:
"We've tested this phenomenon for decades. It's almost definitely how things work, but it's still slightly sketchy, so we're not gonna call it a law."
Yes, the Big Bang Theory is accurate.
NASA sent satelites into Space to record the properties of the surrounding atmosphere, and how they appeared to be shifting, over several decades. They then projected this movement of particles, aeons into the past using super computers. What they've found is that at one point, what The Big Bang states, is how it started.
Yes, it is difficult to project back that long, but considering the sheer amount of what they have recorded, I would say that they are not wrong.
But then again, I'm just a year twelve student over in Australia.
=P
Bouncing Ball said:
Well that's up to you to decide. As it is, you either have to acknowledge that the universe is timeless and beyond our current comprehension.
Some have been so bold to say that the universe simply is.
Or... you could acknowledge that some creator does exist, who is equally unfathomable.
Both cases are pretty big stretches of imagination.
On a side note, did you know that we haven't been able to detect any particle that acts like "Gravity".
Einstein called it "Space-Time".
It's amazing how little we still understand.
Einstein pretty much gave us an excuse, though, and told the world that "Space-Time" is indetectable, but meh...
I don't think there will ever be a way to tell. Our ideas of math fall apart at the instant of the big bang.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Maybe the difference is only in the wording?
The same logic applies to causes as to effects, beacuse every effect is also a cause and every cause also an effect.
BucephalusBB
ABACABB
Depends on what you make around the "I don't know"/"God".
From the moment you call it the "force that does all" or "love" or even a being, it's not the same anymore. If for someone God equals "the unknown before the big bang" and nothing more, then it could be the same. But if you link that to other things, we are lost, because in my head, that link does not need to exist.
With that it would also be unneccesary to call my unknown detail "God" as the standard definition of God, whatever that may be, is not "I don't know". So if all you want to replace by "God" is "I don't know", then why should you?
And, would you offend people who claim to know God?
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
That's so circular I got dizzy just reading it. :areyoucra
Every effect is a cause, but not every cause is an effect. Effects only result from causes, so there must have been a first cause.