Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Ok, you're obviously either incapable of or unwilling to understand my argument.

Under your argument "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it possible that God exists" it's equally possible (not equally probable, equally possible) that a sneezing unicorn capable of creating your God exists. If it's not possible for this unicorn to exist, then an infinite number of possibilities (a premise in your argument) do not exist. That's the flaw, right there.

I'm not equating anything. I'm not assessing probabilities. I'm simply pointing out the major error with that argument. That you're incapable of seeing that fatal error isn't my problem.

Where has anyone claimed is not possible, in theory, for a unicorn to exist in infinity ?

You tried presenting the unicorn argument as an equivalent analogy to the theistic one when its not. Analogically referencing unicorns doesn't disprove anything.

I could equally try to pretend the atheistic argument is that only matters verified physically to date can exist.

Regarding theism, I believe it is possible and probable an infinite sprit exists, nature unknown, that was the uncaused cause. Nothing more, nothing less.
Claiming I believe anything else is a deliberate misrepresentation of the argument.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

You see the problem is you're pretending that Catholics believe it is irrefutable poof for non Catholics, when they make no such claim. It's more evidence (not proof) for Catholics for their own spiritual beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

That's perfectly fine. For all that I care Catholics can believe every single event in their life is a miracle. But, if you abide by the above, you can no longer use miracles as evidence for the existence of your god.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Where has anyone claimed is not possible, in theory for a unicorn to exist in infinity ?

You tried presenting the unicorn argument as an equivalent strawman argument to the theistic one when its not.

I believe it more likely that an infinite sprit exists, nature unknown, that was the uncaused cause.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Again, let me stress, we're talking about possibilities and not probabilities. It doesn't matter which one you believe to be more likely to exist: that has nothing to do with possibilities, that has to to with probabilities.

For example. If I play the lotto there are, with regards to winning, two possibilities: I'll either win the lotto or I won't win the lotto. That's a 50:50 possibility. Does that say anything for the probability that I'll win or won't win? No, not at all. The probability that I'll win is tiny. The possibility of an event occuring is not synonymous with the probability of that event occuring, and vice versa.

So, you admit, under your conditions of an infinite universe with infinite possibilities (again, not probabilities) that it's possible for a unicorn which, upon sneezing, gave birth to your God.

Given that the event is possible, in an "infinite universe with infinite possibilities" it can be argued that the event will occur. If it occurs we've to arrive at one of two conclusions:

The unicorn, by sneezing, gave birth to your God. This removes the uniqueness of your God and makes the whole argument kind of pointless.

Or, the unicorn can't exist. If it can't exist then there's something not possible. If there's something not possible we're not really talking about "infinite possibilities". This renders the argument useless.

You've one possible recourse: to say that God exists outside of the universe. This is what most (all?) theists say. If you admit this then can you please stop using that "infinite universe, infinite possibilities" argument? It's completely and utterly pointless and meaningless, especially under the condition that one of the possibilities you want to speak about is God.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's perfectly fine. For all that I care Catholics can believe every single event in their life is a miracle. But, if you abide by the above, you can no longer use miracles as evidence for the existence of your god.

Same old failed misrepresentation of what Catholics believe.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere.

Again, let me stress, we're talking about possibilities and not probabilities. It doesn't matter which one you believe to be more likely to exist: that has nothing to do with possibilities, that has to to with probabilities.

For example. If I play the lotto there are, with regards to winning, two possibilities: I'll either win the lotto or I won't win the lotto. That's a 50:50 possibility. Does that say anything for the probability that I'll win or won't win? No, not at all. The probability that I'll win is tiny. The possibility of an event occuring is not synonymous with the probability of that event occuring, and vice versa.

So, you admit, under your conditions of an infinite universe with infinite possibilities (again, not probabilities) that it's possible for a unicorn which, upon sneezing, gave birth to your God.

Given that the event is possible, in an "infinite universe with infinite possibilities" it can be argued that the event will occur. If it occurs we've to arrive at one of two conclusions:

The unicorn, by sneezing, gave birth to your God. This removes the uniqueness of your God and makes the whole argument kind of pointless.

Or, the unicorn can't exist. If it can't exist then there's something not possible. If there's something not possible we're not really talking about "infinite possibilities". This renders the argument useless.

You've one possible recourse: to say that God exists outside of the universe. This is what most (all?) theists say. If you admit this then can you please stop using that "infinite universe, infinite possibilities" argument? It's completely and utterly pointless and meaningless, especially under the condition that one of the possibilities you want to speak about is God.

Same old failed misrepresentation of the theistic argument again, when has anyone stated this universe is the same as infinity ? There could be an infinite number of universes, never mind what is outside of them.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Same old misrepresentation argument of what Catholics believe.

What are you talking about? You just said that miracles were something which Catholics used as evidence among themselves. I said that this is fine, but under that condition don't use them as evidence of your God to unbelievers.

This is somehow a misrepresentation? I'd love to know how.

Same old failed misrepresentation of the theistic argument again, when has anyone stated this universe is the same as infinity ? There could be an infinite number of universes, never mind what is outside of them.

This is getting tiresome. I'm using the argument you've used here and in other places "in an infinity is it infinitely possible that God exists". (here and here, for example). I'm replacing the word "God" in your argument with the words "unicorn which, upon sneezing, made your God". Doing this shows the argument to be what it is: meaningless drivel.

It's not my problem that you're unable to see why this is the case.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What are you talking about? You just said that miracles were something which Catholics used as evidence among themselves. I said that this is fine, but under that condition don't use them as evidence of your God to unbelievers.

This is somehow a misrepresentation? I'd love to know how.

Who here is doing that ? Why would I care what you believe or don’t ? I'm only interested when you attempt to misrepresent what I believe.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

This is getting tiresome. I'm using the argument you've used here and in other places "in an infinity is it infinitely possible that God exists". (here and here, for example). I'm replacing the word "God" in your argument with the words "unicorn which, upon sneezing, made your God". Doing this shows the argument to be what it is: meaningless drivel.

It's not my problem that you're unable to see why this is the case.

More argumentum ad nauseam.

In your last post you also replaced the word infinity with universe in an attempt to misrepresent the argument yet again. What's meaningless drivel is subscribing all of God's attributes to the phrase "unicorn which, upon sneezing, made your God" and then try to pretend that is the actual theistic belief. You can replace all the words in my belief with "

:):rolleyes: "if you like its still yet another failed misrepresentation.

lmaopml

I think ALL Christians believe in miracles JammyDodger, not just Catholics.

Part of Jesus ministry according to scripture was that he performed miracles and managed to inexplicably change the natural order of a persons makeup..

- there are disclaimers of course, but it's part of having 'faith' too, that the reason for that miracle is because one had faith and was inexplicably healed, either spiritually or physically depending on how we 'believe' God chose for us as individuals.

I don't think the arguement for who is reponsible or not responsible for the 'proof' of Gods existence will ever seperate itself from the simplicity of taking a leap of faith at some point - and that's a turning point. Nobody will show God to anybody in a naturalistic sense, they can perhaps point towards examples of his work, or the beauty of the person and creation etc. and also to moral imprints - but reductionists will always reduce and the very odd time you will find that some of them will find the beauty of God hidden in nature too and the most miniscule particle or cell and how it behaves.

It's how we're 'wired' in some ways, but if we only go the reductionist route than we are 'ALL' wired really, and only act randomly within our given choices like some kind of chemical junkies with no 'human spirit' as such - I'm not convinced this is the case at all either. In fact, knowing a 'person' is hard to define in a scientific way, or defining a 'person' and their value etc.

Also it's a huge and exciting question for some God's existence or lack thereof, as can be seen from the interest people have in this thread that was created only today, even for those without faith.

There's hope yet :P

Quo Vadis wrote: »

In your last post you also replaced the word infinity with universe in an attempt to misrepresent the argument yet again. What's meaningless drivel is subscribing all of God's attributes to the phrase "unicorn which, upon sneezing, made your God" and then try to pretend that is the actual theistic belief. You can replace all the words in my belief with " :):rolleyes: "if you like its still yet another failed misrepresentation.

I'm not trying to represent the theistic position, let alone misrepresent it.

I've been doing one thing, and one thing only: showing how your "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't a God (infinitely) possible", or any varient of the same, in and of itself, isn't a valid or a sound logical argument.

That's all I've been doing this whole time. Nothing more, nothing less. That you're reading more into the argument that is actually there is your own problem, not mine.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'm not trying to represent the theistic position, let alone misrepresent it.

I've been doing one thing, and one thing only: showing how your "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't a God (infinitely) possible", or any varient of the same, in and of itself, isn't a valid or a sound logical argument.

That's all I've been doing this whole time. Nothing more, nothing less. That you're reading more into the argument that is actually there is your own problem, not mine.

You haven't showed anything, Nada, that's the problem. Just lots an lots of mis-representation and smoke.

Sure have another go, how isn't it a valid or a sound logical argument. ? (without misrepresenting what I believe or have stated for the umpteenth time) i.e. how is it not possible for God to exist ? Knock yourself out again.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

You haven't showed anything, Nada, that's the problem.

Read over the half dozen or more posts where I've explained the counterargument.

Sure have another go, how (without misrepresenting what I believe or have stated) isn't it a valid or a sound logical argument. ? i.e. how is it not possible for God to exist ? Knock yourself out again.

Ah, so you don't even understand your own argument at this stage? This just shows how much attention you've been paying.

I haven't been arguing to disprove the existence of God. That's an impossible argument to make. That you even think I was trying to do that is beyond me.

Read my last post again. I was arguing against the argument you've used a few times: "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it (infinitely) possible that a god exists". Understand?

If you don't understand this time then I give up.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I haven't been arguing to disprove the existence of God. That's an impossible argument to make. That you even think I was trying to do that is beyond me.

Read my last post again. I was arguing against the argument you've used a few times: "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it (infinitely) possible that a god exists". Understand?

If you don't understand this time then I give up.

:rolleyes:

BTW -Universe yet again ? I think you'll find it was infinity, a bit like the hole you dug for yourself.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Universe yet again ? I think you'll find it was infinity

I told you when your in a hole, its is best to stop digging.

That doesn't make a single bit of difference to my argument, though.

Take the statement, which is your own, "in an infinity of infinite possibilities is it possible a god exists". Use my exact same counter argument, as follows:

1) In an infinity of infinite possibilities, is it possible that a unicorn exists, whereupon sneezing, created your God.

2) If it is possible for this unicorn to exist, then it can be argued that it does indeed exist, for the very same reasons it can be argued that your God exists. You can draw no distinction between the two when it comes to possibilities.

3) If it is not possible for this unicorn to exist, then infinite possibilities do not exist. This shows one of the arguments premises to be wrong.

4) Your God coming about by the sneeze of a unicorn isn't exactly a conclusion of the argument which you expected to see, I'm guessing. So retracting the argument is probably the best thing you could do.

You have one recourse: that God has always existed. This is a core belief of the theistic position. If this is the case your wishy-washy argument isn't needed.

I just hate to see the "in an infinity, yada yada yada" argument used because a) it doesn't make sense, and b) it's not needed to back up your position.

I've absolutely no doubt that you'll reply to this with claims of misrepresentation (of what I don't know), of strawmen, and of this, that and the other. If you don't understand the counterargument this time, then please leave it at that.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That doesn't make a single bit of difference to my argument, though.

Take the statement, which is your own, "in an infinity of infinite possibilities is it possible a god exists". Use my exact same counter argument, as follows:

1) In an infinity of infinite possibilities, is it possible that a unicorn exists, whereupon sneezing, created your God.

2) If it is possible for this unicorn to exist, then it can be argued that it does indeed exist, for the very same reasons it can be argued that your God exists. You can draw no distinction between the two when it comes to possibilities.

3) If it is not possible for this unicorn to exist, then infinite possibilities do not exist. This shows one of the arguments premises to be wrong.

4) Your God coming about by the sneeze of a unicorn isn't exactly a conclusion of the argument which you expected to see, I'm guessing. So retracting the argument is probably the best thing you could do.

You have one recourse: that God has always existed. This is a core belief of the theistic position. If this is the case your wishy-washy argument isn't needed.

I just hate to see the "in an infinity, yada yada yada" argument used because a) it doesn't make sense, and b) it's not needed to back up your position.

I've absolutely no doubt that you'll reply to this with claims of misrepresentation (of what I don't know), of strawmen, and of this, that and the other. If you don't understand the counterargument this time, then please leave it at that.

I've already stated that God is the uncaused cause, where have I said he is not ?

If you want to start a thread that some people are trying to claim that it is possible unicorns identical to God exist, and you disagree feel free to start one.

In your last post you also replaced the word infinity with universe in an attempt to misrepresent the argument yet again. Changing the wording from God to the phrase "unicorn which, upon sneezing, made your God" and then try to pretend that is the actual theistic belief has and always will fail. You can replace all the words of my argument with " ♫♫↕♦☻♥ " if you like, its still yet another failed misrepresentation of my argument.

Keep beating the strawman to your hearts content.

-JammyDodger wrote:

I haven't been arguing to disprove the existence of God. That's an impossible argument to make. That you even think I was trying to do that is beyond me.

Read my last post again. I was arguing against the argument you've used a few times: "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities isn't it (infinitely) possible that a god exists". Understand?

If you don't understand this time then I give up.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

If you want to start a thread that some people are trying to claim that it is possible unicorns exist, and you disagree feel free to start one.

So you still fail to even understand the idea of the argument.

In your last post you also replaced the word infinity with universe in an attempt to misrepresent the argument yet again.

It was accidental, which I've already acknowledged. But, would you believe, using the word universe instead of the word infinity has no consequence on the argument or its outcome.

Changing the wording from God to the phrase "unicorn which, upon sneezing, made your God" and then try to pretend that is the actual theistic belief has and always will fail.

I've never tried to pretend it's the position of a theist. You still fail to grasp that all I've been doing is arguing against the argument "in an infinity of infinite possibilities." That's it, nothing more.

You can replace all the words of my argument with " ♫♫↕♦☻♥ " if you like, its still yet another failed misrepresentation of my argument.

Keep beating the strawman to your hearts content.

Here, have a happy face, maybe you'll understand that:

Also, I won't be replying to you again concerning this argument. I should have realised a dozen posts ago that it's a pointless endeavour.

Good job with the selective quoting! This is honestly some of the best selective highlighting of a post I've ever seen:

No hard feelings Jammy, good try.

God loves a trier

ISAW

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It was accidental, which I've already acknowledged. But, would you believe, using the word universe instead of the word infinity has no consequence on the argument or its outcome.

Others make mistakes logical errors or fallacies but Jammy has "accidents"

I've never tried to pretend it's the position of a theist. You still fail to grasp that all I've been doing is arguing against the argument "in an infinity of infinite possibilities." That's it, nothing more.

It seem to me you have tried to turn a "prime mover" argument into a "Turtles all the way down" argument.

By the way we are not left with two alternatives
Münchhausen Trilemma applies to physics, science and mathematics as well you know?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The argument itself isn't great, I know. But the main point behind it is a very good one, I think:

I've not been made aware of any miracle which claims to have cured a condition that is definitely incurable. Not a condition which we're currently unable to cure or prevent; a condition that, by it's very nature, is incurable inside of the natural world. Amputees are just the most obvious example of such a condition.

It really isn't apart from the proclamation that you've never heard of such a miracle. This is not the same thing as it never happening. Or it doesn't mean that it can't happen. As I've said, you can do much much better. I don't see why this would make it less probable that God exists to be honest with you and it is taking us off the main topic of the thread.

ISAW

philologos wrote: »

It really isn't apart from the proclamation that you've never heard of such a miracle. This is not the same thing as it never happening. Or it doesn't mean that it can't happen. As I've said, you can do much much better. I don't see why this would make it less probable that God exists to be honest with you and it is taking us off the main topic of the thread.

Assume that someone can come back from the dead after several days. That would be a miracle even greater than growing back an arm. Christians believe that that has happened. Some people when given evidence that a miracle happened might think "that isn't sufficient evidence" The thing is there never will be sufficient evidence for them because they do not believe it is true. Their position is based on faith (or lack of it ). some people don't have the same level of evidence and yet still believe. They might have additional evidence and still don't believe.

What can you do about that? I mean say someone did grow back an arm ( or had an Ear re attached without any signs of it happening) the same people will say the whole thing is a trick. My point is you can never reach a point where you can factually proof belief, you either have faith or you don't. This isn't restricted to God by the way .Some scientific arguments are faith based since they have no measured evidence e.g. wormholes, tachyons.

ShooterSF

Onesimus wrote: »

Yes Sister brieges occurance has been verified as a miracle.

Jesus works in the ordinary and extroadinary form. so when I have a headache Jesus comes to me in the form of Panadol. He therefore works through mens hearts believers and non-believers and finds medicine. He also works in the extroadinary form in which he can heal someone instantly beyond the confines of the human mind. So yes all healings are done by Jesus. But the extroadinary that go beyond the confines of scientific explanation when done in the name of Jesus Christ and calling upon his mercy directly, is a ''miracle''.

Google sr.briege and listen to her story.

her story is not an anencdote. as I've already explained all who knew her including her doctors were baffled, as were those thousands who witnessed it with their own eyes.

Onesimus now exiting the debate.

Gold. Just pure gold. So the active ingredient in panadol is jesus, brilliant. Of course it kinda falls down in the fact that panadol doesn't cure infections (or anything really) does that mean antibiotics are more powerful than jesus?
Or are they made of super jesus?
What about people allergic to paracetamol? Are they allergic to jesus?
Oh and why can't you just pop a communion cracker instead?
Of course you were clever enough to realise that your claim may have holes in it so just claimed and then announced you were done. Fair play.

Even if I believe that God didn't heal amputees for arguments sake (even if it is a ridiculous argument). Couldn't a God who decided not to heal amputees for some reason or another exist? This is why the argument is profoundly weak, never mind if the assertion itself is highly dubious.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

How is it beyond your choosing to believe if Star Wars is real or not ?

Its not. It is beyond my choosing to follow or reject the Emperor because I don't believe he exists.

Christianity wants you to believe in God. God doesn't exist, so I can't choose to do that or not do that.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

So Sophie is not choosing between God and no God, Heaven or Hell. (the topic) Good, I'm glad you've got that.

No. Are you saying your logic only applies to the specific context of choosing to believe in God? If so can you explain why?

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I expect you to understand the concept of there being consequences for your beliefs

But only in the context of choosing to believe in God or not? Not in any other context?

What do you think the consequence of the choice Sophie made in that movie? Was it that she killed her daughter?

ISAW wrote: »

Others make mistakes logical errors or fallacies but Jammy has "accidents"

Not at all. The two statements "in an infinity of infinite possibilities" (which means what I don't know) and "in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities" are equivilant when it comes to the counterargument I used.

Both statements don't really make sense, either, but that was beside the point of the argument you've failed to grasp.

It seem to me you have tried to turn a "prime mover" argument into a "Turtles all the way down" argument.

Not at all. My argument was simply against Quo Vadis' argument of "in an infinity of infinite possibilities isn't god possibile." It was and still is nothing more than that. Nothing to do with a prime mover nor nothing to do with an infinite regression.

By the way we are not left with two alternatives
Münchhausen Trilemma applies to physics, science and mathematics as well you know?

Completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument I was making.

philologos wrote: »

It really isn't apart from the proclamation that you've never heard of such a miracle. This is not the same thing as it never happening.

Well then can somebody provide evidence of such a thing happening? I've searched for it without luck. Any "modern" miracles I do find are to do with ailments and diseases which, given time or chance, could have cured themselves by natural means.

Or it doesn't mean that it can't happen. As I've said, you can do much much better. I don't see why this would make it less probable that God exists to be honest with you and it is taking us off the main topic of the thread.

It's not an argument against the existence of God. It's not an argument to make God's existence any less probable.

It's an argument against peoples' use of "but miracles are evidence blah blah blah", which was brought up earlier in this thread.

philologos wrote: »

The amputee argument is one of the poorest objections I've ever heard to Christianity. You're much better than that argument JammyDodger. It is riddled with assumptions for a start.

You some what miss the pont. People are not actually that concerned about why God doesn't heal amputees particularly.

The point of the argument is the highlight that "God" never does anything that cannot be equally explained by mistakes or slight of hand on part of those assessing the miracle.

So God cures cancers we don't really understand ourselves (ie it could just have easily been something missed on the part of the doctors), or brings people back to life a few seconds after they "died" (again equally explained by them not actual being dead).

He never does anything actually miraculous and verifiable, like regrowing a persons arm or leg. It would be very difficult to explain that away by saying it might have been a mistake on the part of the doctors. Something that is not possible based on current natural laws and which if it happened is unmistakable.

God never does this, at least not in any example that is verifiable.

A bit like a TV psychic never wins the lottery, or a magictian claiming to levitate never levitates to the top of a tall building in front of a crowd of scientists.

There have been various poor excuses for this from Christian apologists, from saying that it is not up to us to decide what God does, to saying that if God was too obvious then it would be too clear that he exists.

All of those are some what pathetic arguments, like what the Rapture cult are now coming up with to explain why the world didn't end. The clearest explanation is that God never does these things because God doesn't do anything, and these miracles are the product of misunderstandings or in the minority of cases, deception.

Convincing the naive and gullible that something miraclous has taken place when it really hasn't is not particularly difficult or all that unusual, con-men have been doing that for hundreds of years. It seems some what odd that the divine creator of the universe would limit himself to similar sort of nonsense. Unless of course he isn't actually real and those who claim he is and does these miracles are themselves either the naive and gullible or the con-men.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I don't deny biological evolution. I don't see it as a process without any form of cause however.

So you accept evolution, interesting. Therefore you agree that if it was caused by what ever you like to identify with, then we are the result of a causal chain of events or more accurately part of a causal chain of events. Do realise the implications of that? The link may not seem clear but this is why asked a question about whether you are a physicalist/monist or a dualist.

It still presumes that God can't do this. It still presumes that there have been no such claims of this. Along side with the fact that it is completely off-topic in beginning to discern whether or not God actually is necessary to exist for even normal everyday existence leaving aside the miraculous.

This argument is pretty much worst one that atheists can use in this topic. It is a waste of time in even trying to discuss because there are too many holes in it.

philologos wrote: »

Even if I believe that God didn't heal amputees for arguments sake (even if it is a ridiculous argument). Couldn't a God who decided not to heal amputees for some reason or another exist?

Anything could exist Philologos. Supposing something could exist is not a reason to believe it does. If that is the best you can come up with is it any wonder we are atheists?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So you accept evolution, interesting. Therefore you agree that if it was caused by what ever you like to identify with, then we are the result of a causal chain of events or more accurately part of a causal chain of events. Do realise the implications of that? The link may not seem clear but this is why asked a question about whether you are a physicalist/monist or a dualist.

Not even Descartes with whom Cartesian dualism was in earnest a dualist. He believed that mind was something different to body but that both intrinsically depend on eachother. The mind is intimately connected to its appendages in the body via the brain (Descartes thought it might have been the heart but the more likely being the brain).

I personally think that the mind is constituted from the processes of the brain and from what is stored within it. I believe that spirit is something different than the mind however. It is the essence of our being, it isn't physical nor does it depend on biological matter. It is a descriptor of who philologos is from start to end even if I happen to fall into amnesia which would dramatically alter the mind. One could perhaps say that it is the content of God's mind concerning me. One could speculate on it to a great degree.

There are a lot of things that I don't know and that I'll be probing into until I die.

I don't believe that everything is material. The material is only what appears to sense perception. The material itself cannot tell us anything about its ultimate cause. Basing a worldview on materialism is inadequate for this reason.

Wicknight wrote: »

Anything could exist Philologos. Supposing something could exist is not a reason to believe it does. If that is the best you can come up with is it any wonder we are atheists?

It isn't an argument for my position. It's an objection to the woeful amputees argument and it is a valid objection. The amputees argument does absolutely nothing to substantiate your position.

philologos wrote: »

It still presumes that God can't do this.

A real psychic could choose not to tell the future except for in cases where they are in a room full of gullible people, and he could choose to use techniques a fake psychic uses to gather information, such as cold reading.

He could do all of this and still be real. But it is a rather silly proclamation to make. If I heard this excuse from followers of said psychic I would roll my eyes, as I imagine you would. The argument well just because he does all this doesn't prove he is not real is weak at best.

philologos wrote: »

It still presumes that there have been no such claims of this.

There have been no claims that are verifiable, so again this falls smack bang in the middle of the type of stuff you would get if you did have a made up religion, ie unverifiable claims of miraculous events taking place.

Using the psychic analogy again, a real psychic could have talked to John F Kennedy in a room on his own with no one around and asked him no questions who's answers were not public knowledge anyway.

But do you think if he said this is what happened you, or anyone, would believe him because it could have happened?

Or again would you just roll your eyes because even if the psychic is real he is acting in exactly the same way a fake psychic would work?

If a set of real supernatural claims are indistinguishable from a set of fake supernatural claims then by definition we cannot tell the different. Your position seems to be that we should believe them anyway because they could be real. This is nonsense, and nonsense that you seem to apply only to Christianity

philologos wrote: »

Along side with the fact that it is completely off-topic in beginning to discern whether or not God actually is necessary to exist for even normal everyday existence leaving aside the miraculous.

Well you seem to have given up on that subject yourself, or perhaps I just missed your response.

I'll ask again, apologies if you answered this already. Which is more likely, God or M-theory.

philologos wrote: »

This argument is pretty much worst one that atheists can use in this topic. It is a waste of time in even trying to discuss because there are too many holes in it.

The analogy with the real psychic who, for some reason, only acts like a fake psychic should demonstrate how un-holy the argument is :pac:

What part of the amputees argument can help answer whether or not God exists? If there isn't such a part what's the point in bringing it up in this thread? Simple question.

As for M-theory as far as I'm aware most physicists would agree that the universe has a beginning and that it will have an end. I'm working on the assumption that we can determine the age of the universe from looking to the spread of the universe since the Big Bang. By that we can conclude that the universe has a finite age rather than an infinite one. Judging on that it seems that the universe is a finite entity, and every finite entity must have an ultimate cause (even if there are intermediary finite causes inbetween).