Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

"sculpture or a formation"

Whatever you want to call it, if it is something which we can tell through analogy has been designed etc then it's fair enough for us to imagine it is. We can't do this with basic elements of life/plants.

An alternative and more logical explanation

Some explanations are so bad that a better alternative is "we don't know". Also what about an alternative equally logical explanation i.e. a magical fairy did it instead? By your logic you should not only accept that God created our planet but also a magical dreamtime serpent.

How about something that looked like it could have been sculpted, but you had no way of knowing?

Like what? Like say sticks on a beach that spell out the word 'freedom' but could have possibly just been natural forces? I'd say it's safe to bet the sticks were put there by man. Do you want to try to extend this to the elements of life somehow?

But we also have no way of knowing whether it is natural or not, since we have nothing to compare it too.

If it is something like a sculpture or something that looks man made... chances are we will be safe to determine a man made it.

Something which looks like it could either have been sculpted or formed naturally fits into this category. Right?

What?

 

[lbell34]

does God exist??
the real question is how could god not exist.
look at the world, look how everything works together. for biology students- you understand the complexity of the human body, the mind, how we fit in this world. look at plants, look at animals. how is the earth a perfect distance from the sun. look at the stars. its no accident.
how could god not exist???

 

[Ennaybur]

There are many, many planets that are in the universe. These are not the perfect distance from the sun etc (or 'goldilocks condition). Therefore life didn't evolve there. We happen to be on one that can support ife, therefore life exists here.

How could God NOT exist? Give logical reasons for its existence.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

the real question is how could god not exist.

He could have created the universe then killed himself?
Magical pixie dust might do everything?

how is the earth a perfect distance from the sun.

Look up the anthropic principle?

 

[trolloutaface]

God exists because I can feel it. I don't need to justify my beliefs to anyone.

and don't compare santa to god. really, it's a stupid thing to do.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I am sick of this thread.

There is no proof. Belief is based totally on faith. This is ok.

Now would all believers please admit this so this thread can be closed.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

God exists because I can feel it.

Personally I think what you're feeling is the sort of hope a gambler feels.

 

[Josie]

I am sick of this thread.

There is no proof. Belief is based totally on faith. This is ok.

Now would all believers please admit this so this thread can be closed.

For once I agree with you.

 

[ari89]

I am sick of this thread.

There is no proof. Belief is based totally on faith. This is ok.

Now would all believers please admit this so this thread can be closed.

Oh, I thought this thread was about athiests forcing their beliefs down thiests throats and getting really peed when they ignored it with a follow up of insulting their intelligence.

 

[trolloutaface]

Personally I think what you're feeling is the sort of hope a gambler feels.

um but usually that sort of feeling goes away and you get over it.

For once I agree with you.

same.

I am sick of this thread.

I am sick of year 12 olol :O

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Oh, I thought this thread was about athiests forcing their beliefs down thiests throats and getting really peed when they ignored it with a follow up of insulting their intelligence.

It works both ways... thiests are constantly forcing their beliefs down athiests throats and insulting their intelligence when they don't believe.

Thiests need to stop trying to prove god exists with ridiculous arguments and/or trying to make athiests prove god doesn't exist. The truth is no one can prove god exists and I am seriously going to kill the next person who says that athiests should prove god does not exist.... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Athiests need to stop caring what other people believe no matter how stupid they think it is... not only do people have the right to be stupid if they want to be but they clearly don't think it is all that stupid if they believe it. There are also some pretty decent reasons for believing in god whether he exists or not.

It is a never ending argument. I am never going to admit that god exists without solid evidence and a christian is never going to say god doesn't exist because then what have they been believing in. Arguing back and forth constantly is useless. Surely there is something more reasonable to discuss in relation to this topic.

 

[ari89]

It works both ways... thiests are constantly forcing their beliefs down athiests throats and insulting their intelligence when they don't believe.

In the ideal athiest's world...doesn't seem to happen as often as the way I said it.

Thiests need to stop trying to prove god exists with ridiculous arguments and/or trying to make athiests prove god doesn't exist. The truth is no one can prove god exists and I am seriously going to kill the next person who says that athiests should prove god does not exist.... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

It's only fair that it be argued both ways. Iamsickofyear12, prove God doesn't exist

Athiests need to stop caring what other people believe no matter how stupid they think it is... not only do people have the right to be stupid if they want to be but they clearly don't think it is all that stupid if they believe it. There are also some pretty decent reasons for believing in god whether he exists or not.
It is a never ending argument. I am never going to admit that god exists without solid evidence and a christian is never going to say god doesn't exist because then what have they been believing in. Arguing back and forth constantly is useless. Surely there is something more reasonable to discuss in relation to this topic.

True. People can believe what they want and someones little theory for or against their beliefs isn't going to make them change their entire worldview.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

In the ideal athiest's world...doesn't seem to happen as often as the way I said it.

It's only fair that it be argued both ways. Iamsickofyear12, prove God doesn't exist

I see it all the time... but it is certainly happening less now as it seems there are fewer and fewer religious young people around.

It's not about being fair.
My only response to that argument from now on no matter how many times it comes up is going to be the posting of this link:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
... and I hope everyone else does the same.

 

[ari89]

I see it all the time... but it is certainly happening less now as it seems there are fewer and fewer religious young people around.

Nah, it's just people like yourself pinning stereotypes to them.

It's not about being fair.
My only response to that argument from now on no matter how many times it comes up is going to be the posting of this link:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
... and I hope everyone else does the same.

Who is to say the burden of proof lies that way? American criminal law isn't the universal standard for setting the burden of proof in an argument. In Australia for example, the burden of proof for actions of trespass switches to both sides.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Nah, it's just people like yourself pinning stereotypes to them.

Who is to say the burden of proof lies that way? American criminal law isn't the universal standard for setting the burden of proof in an argument. In Australia for example, the burden of proof for actions of trespass switches to both sides.

Pinning what stereotypes to who?

That is the way the burden of poof lies. You can argue it doesn't if you want but I'm not going to reply because it is stupid. Who said that American criminal law is the universal standard? It just says that in America it works that way. Stop looking for excuses to move the burden of proof.

 

[umop 3pisdn]

Personally I think what you're feeling is the sort of hope a gambler feels.

the sort of hope a gambler feels is actually known to be based on an intuitive misunderstanding of the basic ideas of probability

 

[ari89]

Pinning what stereotypes to who?

You said thiests force it down athiests throats and then said it happens less because there are less young religious people. It's not happening less because there's less young religious people around, its happening the same it's just that you have the stereotype that young religious people are the ones that force it down your throat. And if you argue against that your argument would make very little sense as there would be quite a noticeable lack of causation occuring. Was it really that hard to follow?

That is the way the burden of poof lies. You can argue it doesn't if you want but I'm not going to reply because it is stupid. Who said that American criminal law is the universal standard? It just says that in America it works that way. Stop looking for excuses to move the burden of proof.

Just as it says it works in America that way in some situations, I also said it works differently in Australia in situations. I guess that makes all legal decisions made on that basis incorrect! There was no excuse to move the burden of proof, I was simply questioning the basis of the concept of the burden of proof. Again, was it really that hard to follow?

You can argue whatever you want in relation to what I just said but I may not reply because it'll just be stupid. Or can only you argue that way?

 

[iamsickofyear12]

You said thiests force it down athiests throats and then said it happens less because there are less young religious people. It's not happening less because there's less young religious people around, its happening the same it's just that you have the stereotype that young religious people are the ones that force it down your throat. And if you argue against that your argument would make very little sense as there would be quite a noticeable lack of causation occuring. Was it really that hard to follow?

Just as it says it works in America that way in some situations, I also said it works differently in Australia in situations. There was no excuse to move the burden of proof, I was simply questioning the basis of the concept of the burden of proof. Again, was it really that hard to follow?

You can argue whatever you want in relation to what I just said but I may not reply because it'll just be stupid. Or can only you argue that way?

I have no idea what you are on about.

American law is an example and Australian law is not. How is Australian law even related to the concept at all?

Don't reply. I don't understand your logic anyway.

 

[ari89]

I have no idea what you are on about.

American law is an example and Australian law is not. How is Australian law even related to the concept at all?

Don't reply. I don't understand your logic anyway.

I replied. I thought someone apparently subscribing to rational logic would understand a simple argument. I was wrong, but not as much as you were.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I replied. I thought someone apparently subscribing to rational logical would understand a simple argument. I was wrong, but not as much as you were.

It may be rational logic but I can't find it anywhere. Maybe I missed something earlier that I needed to read to understand what you are talking about.