Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[jdennis]

That's pretty unrealistic

Especially since there are 10s of arguments for the existence of God in all their variations, and the number of arguments for atheism is basically "evil =(" which isn't actually an argument against God, and moreso against a specific rendition of God (and some others that no one argues for because they are pretty bad arguments)

I agree with you on this. There are not really any good arguments against God's existence simply because the nature of the debate is that the arguments come from those wishing to prove God exists. Just like, I guess, there aren't any arguments against the existence of unicorns or Santa Claus.

A true agnostic would say though that the evidence presented for God's existence is perfectly countered by strong rebuttals against those arguments. It's easy to see then why someone would suggest that the two sides are roughly equally matched. Like you, though, I don't think it's a perfect match - we just differ on which side we go to and by how much

 

[futuremidwife]

This is all an argument from ignorance and means very little. Because something is the best explanation does not mean it's true - in most cases we don't know enough about the thing in question for anyone to say that God is the correct explanation of it beyond reasonable doubt. Not to mention the number of scientific theories that are now wrong because we've now got more correct information with which to make an informed judgement.

The first of these is not worth responding to but I will just say this - the very possibility of unicorns, fairies, magic, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny does not imply that they all exist. As for the second, this is why I don't like Craig - because he presents "personal experience" as an objective argument, when it is by definition subjective.

I agree with you. His theories at times are a bit unjustifiable, and illogical. I just thought I'd put his theories up there as it is worth a read, and to also stimulate conversation.

 

[jdennis]

I agree with you. His theories at times are a bit unjustifiable, and illogical. I just thought I'd put his theories up there as it is worth a read, and to also stimulate conversation.

Absolutely - it is always good to see as many points of view and arguments as possible. Otherwise it's hard to justify forming a judgement about God if you aren't aware of all the arguments.

 

[Sy123]

This is all an argument from ignorance and means very little. Because something is the best explanation does not mean it's true - in most cases we don't know enough about the thing in question for anyone to say that God is the correct explanation of it beyond reasonable doubt. Not to mention the number of scientific theories that are now wrong because we've now got more correct information with which to make an informed judgement.

Ok so let some atheist say: "The best explanation for there being rocks older than 6000 years and there being similar DNA across species is Darwinian evolution"

Theist says: "Just because its the best explanation doesn't mean its true"

Atheist says: "lolol dumb theist go believe in santa lolol"

The first of these is not worth responding to but I will just say this - the very possibility of unicorns, fairies, magic, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny does not imply that they all exist.

Then you are not familiar with what the Ontological argument(s) (loads of versions) actually say, for they don't allow for "fairies, magic etc"

As for the second, this is why I don't like Craig - because he presents "personal experience" as an objective argument, when it is by definition subjective.

Craig rarely uses this, he has his own "Five ways", and many other people use this argument as well, not just Craig

And it has some merit, though I wouldn't personally use it

 

[Maxwell]

I think this argument is futile and bound to never stop (look at the amount of pages lol).


I myself am an atheist.


However, I think arguing over whether or not a god exists doesn't achieve anything except for create conflict between religious and non-religious people.

 

[Sy123]

I myself am an atheist.
.

What led you to that conclusion?"

 

[Kymren]

Molecular biologist Dean Hamer has found a gene which he believes is associated with the self-transcendence aspect of spirituality. while he said that this gene does not specifically code for religion id does come for spirituality which influences our susceptibility to religious influence.
I am an agnostic, but...
I believe that religion is a manifestation of the needs and ideals of society, as well as other environmental impacts. In a sense god does exist. He/She has become a concept, common to many people and religions. He/She is a source of hope, meaning and ethical guidance which many people find they need to help them mentally and emotionally navigate their way through the increasingly chaotic and complex nature of society.
the argument about the existence of god, "Does god exist?", is doomed form the start. The question we should be asking is "Do you believe in god," as god is a immaterial concept rather that a material presence. Many religions teach that god is a incomprehensible concept, while they Believe in gods presence they also believe that a complete and definite knowledge of god is not possible by humans. (e.g. Allah has 100 hundred names but humans will only ever know 99)
Like with science, a completely definite answer can never truly be achieved, as all our knowledge is based on theories which best fit our observations. These theories develop and change over time, with new observations and experiences, becoming increasingly complex.
The answer as to wether or not god exists is based on our beliefs, you can argue for ever about whether or not god exists, but there will always be people who believe in god, people who don't believe and people who don't really care.

 

[jdennis]

Ok so let some atheist say: "The best explanation for there being rocks older than 6000 years and there being similar DNA across species is Darwinian evolution"

Theist says: "Just because its the best explanation doesn't mean its true"

Atheist says: "lolol dumb theist go believe in santa lolol"

You're misinterpreting my point. There is evidence to suggest that evolution is the right explanation. We have enough information to say with a large degree of certainty that it's correct. This is different to simply saying it's true because it's the "best explanation" with limited information.

Then you are not familiar with what the Ontological argument(s) (loads of versions) actually say, for they don't allow for "fairies, magic etc"

I am familiar with the ontological argument, and it is delusional.

Craig rarely uses this, he has his own "Five ways", and many other people use this argument as well, not just Craig

It is the fifth of Craig's "five ways" in the debates I've seen.

 

[jdennis]

Molecular biologist Dean Hamer has found a gene which he believes is associated with the self-transcendence aspect of spirituality. while he said that this gene does not specifically code for religion id does come for spirituality which influences our susceptibility to religious influence.
I am an agnostic, but...
I believe that religion is a manifestation of the needs and ideals of society, as well as other environmental impacts. In a sense god does exist. He/She has become a concept, common to many people and religions. He/She is a source of hope, meaning and ethical guidance which many people find they need to help them mentally and emotionally navigate their way through the increasingly chaotic and complex nature of society.
the argument about the existence of god, "Does god exist?", is doomed form the start. The question we should be asking is "Do you believe in god," as god is a immaterial concept rather that a material presence. Many religions teach that god is a incomprehensible concept, while they Believe in gods presence they also believe that a complete and definite knowledge of god is not possible by humans. (e.g. Allah has 100 hundred names but humans will only ever know 99)
Like with science, a completely definite answer can never truly be achieved, as all our knowledge is based on theories which best fit our observations. These theories develop and change over time, with new observations and experiences, becoming increasingly complex.
The answer as to wether or not god exists is based on our beliefs, you can argue for ever about whether or not god exists, but there will always be people who believe in god, people who don't believe and people who don't really care.

God can be "real" for individuals, so can voices in peoples' heads, hallucinations etc. When one person believes they have a divine connection to an almighty being we call it delusional, when many claim it we call it religion.

 

[dan964]

I agree with you on this. There are not really any good arguments against God's existence simply because the nature of the debate is that the arguments come from those wishing to prove God exists. Just like, I guess, there aren't any arguments against the existence of unicorns or Santa Claus.

A true agnostic would say though that the evidence presented for God's existence is perfectly countered by strong rebuttals against those arguments. It's easy to see then why someone would suggest that the two sides are roughly equally matched. Like you, though, I don't think it's a perfect match - we just differ on which side we go to and by how much

actually there are several good arguments disproving santa claus. (sorry kids).
(1) - firstly we know that santa claus was actually st nick, and he wasn't fat etc.
(2) - from (1), since St Nick did not claim divinity, you can confidently say he is not God.
(3) - from (2), science disproves that Santa can deliver all presents, provided statement (2) is true.

 

[jdennis]

actually there are several good arguments disproving santa claus. (sorry kids).
(1) - firstly we know that santa claus was actually st nick, and he wasn't fat etc.
(2) - from (1), since St Nick did not claim divinity, you can confidently say he is not God.
(3) - from (2), science disproves that Santa can deliver all presents, provided statement (2) is true.

no shut up santa is real for me how dare you tell me he doesn't exist
I have experienced him personally
you're just not open minded enough

 

[nerdasdasd]

no shut up santa is real for me how dare you tell me he doesn't exist
I have experienced him personally
you're just not open minded enough

People wearing Santa suits ....

 

[dan964]

no shut up santa is real for me how dare you tell me he doesn't exist
I have experienced him personally
you're just not open minded enough

what I was trying to say, that you cannot compare proving God to proving santa

 

[Sy123]

You're misinterpreting my point. There is evidence to suggest that evolution is the right explanation. We have enough information to say with a large degree of certainty that it's correct. This is different to simply saying it's true because it's the "best explanation" with limited information.

You have never observed large scale Darwinian evolution, so you say that Darwinian evolution (or whatever kind you profess) is the best explanation for the existence of similar DNA, fossils etc.

Your distinction between "real" and "best" is rhetorical at best, you are not even clear with what you mean by "real explanation"

I am familiar with the ontological argument, and it is delusional.

If you were, then you wouldn't attempt a parody of the argument by citing examples of "Santa Claus" and "unicorns"

Other people have given better parodies of the argument, and you would of given them were you actually familiar at all with the argument

It is the fifth of Craig's "five ways" in the debates I've seen.

No, his fifth is appealing to some sort of historical evidence for the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus

 

[Sy123]

Molecular biologist Dean Hamer has found a gene which he believes is associated with the self-transcendence aspect of spirituality. while he said that this gene does not specifically code for religion id does come for spirituality which influences our susceptibility to religious influence.

I believe I have found a gene that determines how well you can see your surroundings

Therefore, your observations of your surroundings is completely illusory since I've found a gene that explains it

--

Not a very good argument now is it?

 

[Kymren]

Not a very good argument now is it?

I did not say that it was. i mearly added it because it was interesting.
the gene doesn't really code for religion or god it codes for spirituality. it is our updringing and or experiences that leads to religion and/or a belief in god. the gene just helps it aloing a bit.

 

[astroman]

no

 

[Sy123]

It's pretty obvious that He does exist

 

[astroman]

what is the point of religion?

 

[Sy123]

what is the point of religion?

The monotheistic faiths claim to be a source of theological knowledge, religion tells you what is right or wrong, religion tells you that you are created by a creator, who is wholy perfect and wholy powerful.

Religion lays out a path towards the divine, religion gives us purpose to fulfill