Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[Riqtay]

"We have discussed it, many times. The only problem is that you and all others who argue for God are completely blind to logic because they've had beliefs for so long it is unfathomable for them to question them".

Laura and I have put our logic behind the existence of God, and yes we both are firm on our beliefs. You fail to acknowledge though that you also are firm on your beliefs.

In our opinion we are using pure logic, and in your opinion you believe that you are using logic.There is no point in trying to impose our views on each other.

Being behind a computer screen doesn't automatically make you a strong and witty person. There is alot of time to think of your replies which are decorated with mockery.

 

[withoutaface]

We are all influenced as children, and yet we still all manage to make our own decisions as adults. You, for example, would have a non-christian influence on your children. I would have a christian influence. Yet, as adults they will be able to make their own decisions. We are not robots, you can't just program someone to believe something.
Once again, we can't force people to believe something. We can tell kids what we believe so that that option is always there to pick up, but unless they personally have a realationship with God, which we cannot impose, they are not a Christian

Yes but being raised with the default belief (ie none) will allow children to make more effective decisions once they reach adulthood because then they are able to make decisions without prejudice.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

BTW, for those of you claiming I have not argued properly... please go back and read the past few posts...

I believe that those who don't believe in God appear to show wisdom and logic behind their convictions, yet in actuality they use logic only in certain situations to their advantage.

They argue that a creation requires a creator, yet dismiss the concept of God. Using logic, a creation (e.g a child) requires a creator (ie the parents). Yet these people claim to use logic, rather they employ the dogma of there being no God, associated with athiesm.

They may argue that there is no physical evidence to prove the existence of God, yet they cannot properly answer the question 'who created the universe?'

'No one', as an answer to that question, highlights their biased application of logic (ie they believe that a child requires a creator yet they dismiss there being a creator of the universe).

A creator does not have to be a logical being, it can be energy. I think atheists only dismiss the notion of God as most religions/people conceptualise it.

Not that bright, you say that energy can take the position of God. I would like to ask does energy have intelligence to create intelligent beings (ie humans)?

You are thus saying that the creation is at a much higher level than the creator, which in my opinion completely dismisses the concept of logic.

Energy doesn't have the attributes which are consistent with a being who has created the universe. The keyword here is created. Energy is a non intelligent thing, which doesn't have the capacity to create the universe. Rather energy is the by product of the universe, created by a supreme being - God.

- Why does it require intelligence?
- I am saying that the creator is energy, as it is the thing that created everything...
- IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A BEING!

Not that bright, you appear to be stating your beliefs,which is entirely fine, yet you haven't given me a well though out reasoning behind your convictions. You are merely stating rather than explaining.

Its kind of like saying that there is a God, without actually explaining (which I have done earlier).

I am starting to believe that you are living up to your username.

No - your reasoning had false prepositions i.e. that a creating force would have to be intelligent.

Note that I constantly answer him, and he simply refuses to reply and instead continues on his crazy little rants.

Actually, I've been a christian for two years. Before that i was strongly decided against Christianity. Making generalisations will get us nowhere

Oh yes as a 14 year old you must have been quite the rebel.

 

[Pianpupodoel]

One particular counter-argument to this 'first-cause' argument I find rather interesting is the claim that the Big Bang is not an actual 'event'.

Formal first-cause, or cosmological, arguments most often point towards the causal principle. That is, everything that begins to exist must have a cause of existence. And seeing (as most people accept) that the universe began to exist with the Big Bang, proponents of this line of arguing say that there must have been a cause for it, a being somewhat akin to God.

But, if we are to take the Theory of General Relativity as truth (for which there is ample physical evidence for, and no evidence against it), the Big Bang is not an event at all.
Events take place within the context of space-time.
The Big Bang has no space-time context, as there was neither time preceding it nor space for it to occur in.
Hence, the Big Bang is not a physical event occuring at a moment in time, and consequently requires no cause.

 

[withoutaface]

"We have discussed it, many times. The only problem is that you and all others who argue for God are completely blind to logic because they've had beliefs for so long it is unfathomable for them to question them".

Laura and I have put our logic behind the existence of God, and yes we both are firm on our beliefs. You fail to acknowledge though that you also are firm on your beliefs.

In our opinion we are using pure logic, yet you believe that you are usingl ogic.There is no point in trying to impose our views on each other, rather it is alright to express them.

Being behind a computer screen doesn't automatically make you a strong and witty person. There is alot of time to think of your replies which are decorated with mockery.

I have studied logic at uni, and managed an HD in it, I know what logic is when I see it.

The problem with your argument is that you have failed to objectively explain why it is possible for God to come out of nowhere but impossible to create singularity from nothing.

 

[sparkl3z]

So many people think that Christians "brainwash" other innocent humans. That is not true, especially as our beliefs are that WE cannot convert people, forgiveness is between that person and God, as is their believing in Him

they do? do you know how rich churches and mosques are because of "donations" ?

 

[Riqtay]

"This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").

From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end".

By arguing that a creator (ie God) requires a creator, you are immediately taking away the atrributes of God. A God is a being, which is all powerful, all wise and is self sufficient. He doesn't require a creator, as he is one and only.

By applying your sort of logic you are ignoring the attributes of a God, rather you are introducing the physics being something which is independant of the universe. You are looking at the figure of God from the perspective of science. God, put simply beyond comprehension.

 

[Generator]

Riqtay, if this god is beyond comprehension, then why does it have attributes? Shouldn't the only 'attribute' be that it is beyond comprehension?

Edit: It's good to see that you ignored the second part of NTB's quote, too.

 

[withoutaface]

"This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").

From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end".

By arguing that a creator (ie God) requires a creator, you are immediately taking away the atrributes of God. A God is a being, which is all powerful, all wise and is self sufficient. He doesn't require a creator, as he is one and only.

By applying your sort of logic you are ignoring the attributes of a God, rather you are introducing the physics being something which is independant of the universe. You are looking at the figure of God from the perspective of science. God, put simply beyond comprehension.

The universe is all encompassing and self sufficient, what's your point? Why could the universe not have been created through an incomprehensible means?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

"This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").

From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end".

By arguing that a creator (ie God) requires a creator, you are immediately taking away the atrributes of God. A God is a being, which is all powerful, all wise and is self sufficient. He doesn't require a creator, as he is one and only.

By applying your sort of logic you are ignoring the attributes of a God, rather you are introducing the physics being something which is independant of the universe. You are looking at the figure of God from the perspective of science. God, put simply beyond comprehension.

What attributes of God? You've just arbitarily given him those contradictory attributes as a cop out. You want to play in the realm of science and logic, you have to play by the rules. You cannot simply claim 'GOD IS BEYOND LOGIC/PHYSICS/SCIENCE!'.

 

[laura_beth]

Oh yes as a 14 year old you must have been quite the rebel.[/QUOTE]

I'm 17, and once again you are resorting to "witty" comments which give nothing back to our discussion

 

[withoutaface]

Oh yes as a 14 year old you must have been quite the rebel

I'm 17, and once again you are resorting to "witty" comments which give nothing back to our discussion

And you're resorting to retarded arguments which do the same.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No you talk big about how you 'used to be like us', but i worked it out and the last time you were 'like us' you were 14-15 and probably hadn't even thought about God that much.

 

[insert-username]

"We have discussed it, many times. The only problem is that you and all others who argue for God are completely blind to logic because they've had beliefs for so long it is unfathomable for them to question them".

Laura and I have put our logic behind the existence of God, and yes we both are firm on our beliefs. You fail to acknowledge though that you also are firm on your beliefs.

In our opinion we are using pure logic, yet you believe that you are usingl ogic.There is no point in trying to impose our views on each other, rather it is alright to express them.

Being behind a computer screen doesn't automatically make you a strong and witty person. There is alot of time to think of your replies which are decorated with mockery.

There's also a lot of time to think of replies that have some content. You haven't really answered anything put to you yet - you've simply said "You're stating your beliefs", "I'm arguing with logic", "Your arguments have no logic". You haven't really replied to any of NTB's queries. Why must a creating force be intelligent, for example?

By arguing that a creator (ie God) requires a creator, you are immediately taking away the atrributes of God. A God is a being, which is all powerful, all wise and is self sufficient. He doesn't require a creator, as he is one and only.

By applying your sort of logic you are ignoring the attributes of a God, rather you are introducing the physics being something which is independant of the universe. You are looking at the figure of God from the perspective of science. God, put simply beyond comprehension.p.

If God is beyond the comprehension of science, why are you trying to prove his existence with logic? Religion is fundamentally different to logic since religion's first tenant is the belief in something you cannot understand or comprehend. Something that is bgeyond reason. Logic is the application of reason to find appropriate answers that we can easily comprehend. Thus, it follows that it is impossible to justify the existence of God through logic.


I_F

 

[laura_beth]

No you talk big about how you 'used to be like us', but i worked it out and the last time you were 'like us' you were 14-15 and probably hadn't even thought about God that much.

I've been faced with the issue all my life just as you have, you cannot dismiss my arguements and my faith by assuming i hadn't thought about God that much when i became a christian. i'm sorry if i sounded patronising, it was not intended in that way, i was mearly saying that i know where you're coming from as i've been there.

 

[sparkl3z]

why are you there?

 

[laura_beth]

I'm sorry.. i don't understand you.. do you mean why am i here, talking to you?
I'm here to discuss the existance of God, the same as you.

 

[sparkl3z]

i mean you "used to be like us" then you suddenly realised something about god?

 

[laura_beth]

yeah that's right.. i used to believe that God did not exist. I then decided to look in to it further, reading about scientific views and made a logical conclusion that God does actually exist, because it makes most sense that we were created. I then read the bible and realised that we are blind to something we shouldn't be. God is real, and He loves us. And you think I'm stupid, crazy, whatever, I'm not saying to believe what I do, I just think it is a mistake to dismiss straight away. That's the mistake I almost made, but I'm so glad I chose to think more carefully because my life has changed for the better

 

[withoutaface]

That is not logical. Please explain why it is possible for God to exist without a creator but not the universe, without contradicting yourself. Also your second statement is a blatant appeal to emotion and thus fallacious.