Scientific and logical evidences for the existence of God

[SugaCubez352]

If it is True that God exists and there is Evidence to Prove this Truth;
If it is True that God does not exist, and there is Evidence to Prove this Truth;
Then God cannot exist, because he cannot [exist and not exist] at the same time; Amirite?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

9-10ths_Penguin... You Da Man......well, for responding to all if that "nonsense".......

 

[The Voice of Reason]

9-10ths_Penguin... You Da Man......well, for responding to all if that "nonsense".......

Truly, he has the patience of Job.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

9-10ths_Penguin... You Da Man......well, for responding to all if that "nonsense".......

Word.

 

[painted wolf]

circular reasoning makes me dizzy. :cover:

wa:do

 

[bossbozz]

They believe they have the information of truth, yet believe that beliefs are only a chemical in the brain. Well if it’s only a chemical in the brain, how then can they be objective in knowing that? You would have to be outside the chemical in order to know if your belief is a chemical or within the chemical. Yet they believe all beliefs, including their own, are within the chemicals, how then do they know if their belief is right, that all beliefs are within chemicals since their belief is not outside the box system?

Erm....

Does anyone understand this?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Erm....

Does anyone understand this?

Try wrapping your brain around this one...
From Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?

I also agree that my opinion and Dawkins opinion does not matter for evolution. But evolution is not a fact, it is tons of theories about facts. If it was a fact, I would believe it, but since I don’t believe it, it is not a fact. I believe ALL facts, actually correction, I KNOW all facts are facts. You cannot believe something you know, belief involves taking a leap, with facts there is no leap to take, since you would know. But, I do not KNOW of evolution being a fact, and I disagree with it being a fact, therefore it is not a fact. Does this make me uneducated about the information about evolution? No, I have read a lot about it and debated about it before, not just on this website. I know about the issue, I don’t agree it is a fact.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Try wrapping your brain around this one...
From Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

If you think you understand creationist logic, you don't understand creationist logic.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

If you think you understand creationist logic, you don't understand creationist logic.

I've never said it before, but I'll say it now:
If you think that a thing such as "creationist logic" or "creationist science" are anything other than oxymorons that tickle the ears of willfully ignorant religious fanatics, then you aren't really paying attention.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are only four views, either God did it, or nothing + chance + time did it, or it was always here, or it made itself.

No, those aren't the only four views. Those are only the four views that you can think of.

Now out of all four views, nothing + chance + time doing it is NOT plausible because from nothing, nothing comes, and chance, well that don’t exist, it’s a none entity which holds no factors in stuff.

Great. By the same logic, we can also reject the idea that God created the universe, because God (if he exists) is something and as you say, from nothing, nothing comes.

And even if there was chance, there would have to be a prime mover to get the domino’s going so chance could carry all the domino’s.

Your prime mover explains nothing. When you add God, you're just adding another domino to the front of the line; it still needs a domino itself to knock it over.

And since chance has no GOALS, time would not HELP IT out. So, that one is out of the question.

Are you assuming that we must be the result of some goal-oriented pursuit? If so, why?

The next one, we were always here, well that one even conventional science does not agree with that. You know the big bang implies a beginning (although I don’t believe in the big bang personally, but I’ll use it against you).

No, actually. It's the beginning of the universe in the form that we see now, but it's silent about what existed before. It's more like an opaque curtain than a starting point: there's stuff behind it, but we don't have a way to see it.

This is also why I don't put a lot of stock in your claims about what could or couldn't have existed before the Big Bang: you have no way of knowing.

And the very nature of things show causes and effects.

Not always. At the quantum level, some effects do appear to be random and not have direct causes. Apparently, some things really do happen without cause.

So, it’s not eternal for that reason and it’s not eternal also because there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, otherwise it would take forever to get here, or all things would be happening at the same moment in time, thus chaos. So, that one is also out of the question.

Again, if you say that an infinite regression of causes is impossible, then this excludes God. If what you're saying is true, then God is just another cause who would himself need a cause.

The next one, the universe made itself. Well that is a self contradiction, if the universe made itself, then the universe would not need to make itself, since it is already there in order to make itself, like, duh. So, that one also is out of the question. So the ONLY ONE we have left is GOD DID IT. And that one is the MOST PLAUSIBLE. And it’s that one that has NO PROBLEMS WITH IT.

No, actually: "God did it" has all the problems that you just listed. Take any of your arguments above and replace "the universe" with "God" and they'd all be just as valid.

And if it does (which it don’t) it certainly does not have as much problems as the other three views do.

No, it has more. A self-creating or eternal God has all the logical problems of a self-creating or eternal universe. Depending on which God you're talking about, it may also have problems with contradictory theology or with the demonstrably false claims that various religions make. For instance, is your God omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent? Then you have the Problem of Evil. A universe by itself doesn't have these sorts of logical problems.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if I can dismantle all three other views, just doing that, would PROVE my case for God’s existence, I would not even NEED to build a case FOR God, because by proving the other views WRONG, God’s case would thus already be proved. Because you see, there are only 4 views, there is no 5, there never WAS a 5 and never WILL be a 5. There are variations with all 4 of these views, but there is NOT a 5.

Incorrect. I can think of a fifth and a sixth right off the top of my head:

- some other god, not the god you call "God", created the universe.
- a group of gods created the universe.

And there are many more possibilities besides these. Here's the problem: before the Big Bang, the laws of physics as we know them break down. We can't say with certainty anything about what came before. Did causality work the way it does for us? We don't know. Was there some other system of forces and laws? We don't know. And we don't currently have any way to find out. Therefore, you can't say with certainty that any set of causes are all the possible causes. There's always the possibility that there's some other explanation that nobody has thought of.

Now, does this mean I refuse to SHOW why “God did it” is the most plausible? No, I don’t refuse that, but I just want to make the point that if I disprove in a negative sense all the other 3 views wrong, God’s case is already proven right, now take that into the equation and add it to me PROVING in a positive sense HIS existence, then my case is even MORE SUPER STRONG. So I have evidence FOR GOD’s existence and I have evidence AGAINST all three of the other views. Therefore my case is AIR TIGHT.

No, it's not. You didn't disprove any of the three other views, and you didn't prove that there are only four possibilities.

I absolutely agree that one’s like or dislike for a belief has no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. Your absolutely correct there. But my point about agnostics being the WORST position is true because agnostics by definition claim to NOT KNOW the truth and then go on with life. And they keep asserting to not know the truth and many years go by and by and they still don’t know. The problem with that is this, by their actions they are CLAIMING to KNOW that whatever the truth is, it certainly won’t be harmful to them, and that is why they are so PASSIVE about knowing the truth. But by being passive, that action asserts to know the truth, the truth is for them that nothing will be harmful for them.

I don't know a single agnostic who says that the truth certainly won't be harmful to them. Regardless, this thread is about your case for God, not your case for why you don't like the agnostic position.

Also there is another problem with the position of agnosticism, it asserts that no one can know the truth, that means they are asserting to KNOW that they nor anyone can KNOW. Well, how do they know that? By that very assertion they are claiming to KNOW the truth, the truth being that we cannot know the truth. They don’t know that.

Well, I think here we get into ideas like "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns". Sometimes you can realize that there's a hole in your knowledge; other times, you may have a hole without realizing it.

For instance, say you go out in the yard and see a gopher hole: you can point to the hole and say "I don't know whether there's a gopher in this hole" - this is a "known unknown". However, if there's another gopher hole hidden under a bush, you wouldn't even know that it's there, so you wouldn't be able to point to it and say "I don't know whether there's a gopher in there" - this would be an "unknown unknown".

Effectively, an agnostic is saying that the case for God is like the first example: it's a known unknown. We can formulate a hypothesis, consider the evidence for or against it, and decide that the evidence is inconclusive. While I think individual agnostic claims should be evaluated on their own merits, I don't personally see any inherent logical contradiction in that arrangement.

So really, there are no TRUE agnostics. There are only people who CLAIM they are agnostics without understanding they are NOT.

Enh. If a person tells me that they're either uncertain that God exists or believe that he's unknowable, I'm usually going to accept that this really is what they believe.

Also why would you accuse me of dealing with ones LIKE or DISLIKES if that is what you did to me by saying that I did not LIKE your answer to a question I had? Is that not a double standard going on there?

I'm not saying that we can't talk about people's likes or dislikes at all, I'm saying that whether you like or dislike a thing has no bearing on whether it's true or false.

Right….but not having enough information to tell which one is right, does not mean you don’t have to make a decision. Which one do you PICK or which one do you think is right, and then which one would you LIKE to be right?

Plus there is enough information, I am giving it all here, I am answering all your points and questions and you lack answers to my questions. That should tell you something right there, WHO is right.

"Every complex question has a simple, easy-to-understand wrong answer."

 

[Skeptisch]

God's existence is beyond denial.

You seem to be a true believer and therefore this applies:
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.”
Carl Sagan

 

[Jollybear]

Skeptisch

You seem to be a true believer and therefore this applies:

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.”
Carl Sagan

Yea....i am a true believer, that means i truly believe in my position, right...., but i am open to be convinced otherwise. If lets say my view was proven false, then i would stop believing it.

You know what, i covered this kind of question before, many times actually that i am sick of hearing it. I don't mind debating the same topics many times, but this here i absolutely find it ridiculous.

A need to believe, you know there is also a WANT to NOT believe. So your point is foolish to me.

Oh, PS, 9th_10ths_panguin, thank you for your responses, I will work on my responses over time.

 

[Autodidact]

. The next one, we were always here, well that one even conventional science does not agree with that.

Sorry, this is factually incorrect. Physicists do not know whether the universe had a beginning, and the most current thinking is that it did not. Sorry.

 

[Apollonius]

A religious person that attempts to use science as means to prove the existence of God has in effect invalidated their faith.

 

[painted wolf]

A religious person that attempts to use science as means to prove the existence of God has in effect invalidated their faith.

On this, we are in total agreement.

wa:do

 

[Skeptisch]

Skeptisch you know there is also a WANT to NOT believe.

You are so right, it is called wanting to know!

 

[Jollybear]

Apolonias

A religious person that attempts to use science as means to prove the existence of God has in effect invalidated their faith.

This is wrong. If science is TRUTH and the FAITH is truth, then the truth is the SAME. Therefore one can use science to back up faith. Actually, people who use the name science start off with a view, then look for evidence. Or they make predictions and seek if they are true.

So what you say is wrong. Using science does not invalidate a person’s faith, UNLESS the science proves their faith wrong.

Sceptisch

You are so right, it is called wanting to know!

Your misunderstanding me. Although yes what you say here is correct, we want to know. But that is not what I meant when I said there is a want to NOT believe. What I meant was there is something in us that wants to rebel against accountability to a God.

And actually, let me say this too, some people DON'T want to know. I read one person who addmitted to this and I heard some people say it too.

 

[Skeptisch]

And actually, let me say this too, some people DON'T want to know.

Right again, it is called wanting to believe.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Actually, people who use the name science start off with a view, then look for evidence. Or they make predictions and seek if they are true.

It seems your understanding of how science works is completely backwards. You may want to remedy that.