Doctor Jimbob wrote: » So your claim is God just popped into existence. If we accept this, why do we need there to be a God in the first place? If things are just capable of popping into existence, how do we know the universe didn't do just that. I'm not claiming this is what happened, just pointing out the flaw in your argument.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » a logical reason why a god does not exist
Defender OF Faith wrote: » So far is just been me defending my argument while the atheists have provided no logical or a rational reason why a god does not exist because simply the atheist cant produce a logical reason why a god does not exist
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I don't think many people are outright stating god doesn't exist. Rather, we're pointing out there is bugger all evidence for the existence of said god.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Asking such question doesn't make sense as it's like asking "what is the cause of the first cause", the logic it self can get you all the way to god but once you try to go past god the premises of the argument falls apart as you have reached the uncreated creator asking who created something that's uncreated does not make any rational sense.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Denying the existence of Moses means that your telling the Jews they have been an imaginary ghost for the past millennia, Moses lived more then 3000 years ago it's very difficult to trace the origin of a single man to prove whether he existed or no after such a long period but the legacy and the religion attributed to him proves that long ago a man by the name of Moses existed.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » I find it difficult to believe that someone like Jesus who is celebrated to this day and age had a mental disorder otherwise the people of his time would of no
Defender OF Faith wrote: » I don't understand how can this be used to prove the non-existence of god? the nature of whether god is an all loving or a vengeful is a difference argument all together that doesn't support that atheists when he tries to deny the existence of god.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Your dam certain your right based on what? this is blind faith in a nutshell, can you tell provide me with some logical/rational reasons why not to believe in a god? both the reasons I gave didn't require evidence but simple logic and rational can you do the same to support god non-existence? Your atheism seems to arise because of your religion and your perception of a cruel god that asks you to worship him all your life, what am trying to say is that you can throw all that aside and believe in a god since it's a more logical and rational approach without following a religion or believing what's being said about him in religions an agnostic if you would like.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Your dam certain your right based on what? this is blind faith in a nutshell, can you tell provide me with some logical/rational reasons why not to believe in a god? both the reasons I gave didn't require evidence but simple logic and rational can you do the same to support god non-existence? Your atheism seems to arise because of your religion and your perception of a cruel god that asks you to worship him all your life, what am trying to say is that you can throw all that aside and believe in a god since it's a more logical and rational approach without following a religion or believing what's being said about him in religions an agnostic if you would like. However you can see that as an atheist you really have no good reason not to believe in a good other then trying to exercise your person choice and freedom not to believe in one.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » You're absolutely spot on up until that last bit there.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » People don't tend to go around looking for logical arguments as to why things don't exist. If I went around looking up evidence for every absurd claim made throughout history, I'd do nothing else until the day I die and would only scratch the surface. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, therefore you are the one who should be backing it up with evidence. I may not have direct evidence that he doesn't exist, but there is endless evidence suggesting that he doesn't have to; which is all we can really claim without resorting to circular logic and other flawed debating tactics.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » And yet not you nor anyone in this thread so far have proved to me how is logic and rational is against god you keep saying that their is no evidence but am not looking for evidence am looking for a logical argument as to why god does not exist and no one seems to find any your trying to hard to deny the truth my friend.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Grayson wrote: » Even if we remove the bible from the equation and look at arguments for the existence of a God then we're left with only a few decent ones. One is the cosmological argument. that's the one you mentioned. As i stated the logic is flawed. the logic involves looking for an efficient cause and then abandoning that logic to suit the argument. Also as I stated, it's possible for an infinite regression to occur. A nice one is the ontological argument. There's one by Descartes (Done earlier by a Muslim philosopher) and another by Anslem. You should look them up. There's problems with them though. Once again their logic goes awry. But nevertheless as religious philosophical arguments go, they're nice. Even Kierkegaard (one of my favorites) who was a Christian philosopher stated that you could not have faith unless there was a suspension of both ethics and logic.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Translation: I can't refute your excellent points so I'm going to ignore it and shift the goalposts again
Grayson wrote: » See, if I try to trace stuff back I can go. Why did E happen. I can look and see that it was caused by D. Then i ask why did D happen. And I go back to C. I can keep going back but when I get to a point where I don't know the answer I don't go "well God must exist". I just think there's something there I don't know. Planting in God is what is called in philosophy a skyhook". It's when you build up an argument to a point where you reach a point where there's nothing there holding it up so you create this imaginary hook out of the sky and use it to hold up the argument. That's what God is. Something that wasn't in the argument until it runs out of answers and so it's used to validate the argument.In this case the regression goes back to a certain point where it runs out and people say God. When we say what's before God, the cop out is the there's nothing before God. So the whole logic that was used to create the regression back to God is suddenly abandoned when we get to God. We go back that far because logically there HAS to be an efficient cause, but at some point it's decided that logically there doesn't have to be. And the only reason is because it support the argument for the belief in God
Grayson wrote: » So what? Are you saying that Moses had to exist because otherwise the Jews ware wrong? using that logic I have to accept that Xenu exists because otherwise scientologists are wrong. I have to accept that the muslims are right when they believe in Mohammed and I have to believe that Christians are right when they believe in Jesus. I have to accept the Calvinist doctrine of predetermination and the catholic doctrine of self determination. I have to accept that the world is flat (because many people believed it for thousands of years) and that the world is round. I'd have to believe that Tom Cruise as a high level thetan can levitate himself and that he's deluded. All at the same time. Are you saying it's all true? I'm not going to believe something because people have believed it. And the simple fact that just because Moses is mentioned in the bible doesn't mean that he actually existed. The same way I don't think Cu Chulain existed or Robin Hood. There were stories which were passed down so that folklore became legend. Every single culture has them except with jewish culture a lot of people believe they're real.
Grayson wrote: » mental disorders come in all shapes and sizes. There are many people who lead very fulling lives with mental disorders. And even for those that don't it's not obvious. Firstly it's not like you can identify someone like that on sight. Secondly people back then didn't know about most of them. In Palestine at the time they believed that illnesses were caused by spirit possession. Is it too much to expect that they would assume a charismatic individual was possessed by God?
Grayson wrote: » That isn't blind faith. It's the exact opposite. I chose not to have blind faith. By not having any faith I'm an atheist.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » your an atheist yet you are unable to come up with any logical and rational reason as to why god does not exist that's pretty much blind belief in a nutshell.
Candie wrote: » Not believing in god or atheism is just an absence of belief, not faith in him/her not existing.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » No, the mocking is because of your claims that circular logic contradicts established science. Plenty of people manage to be religious without ignoring facts. You'll find they tend to get mocked less. I wonder why? Personally, I don't need to provide an argument that god doesn't exist, because it doesn't matter to me either way. I'm not going to claim to be anywhere near intelligent enough to prove that there isn't a god, but the fact that there's no proof that there is one is enough for me to decide not to believe. I'm not an atheist because I don't want to believe in a god, I'm an atheist because I see no evidence for it. It's that simple. On a side note, it genuinely scares me when people equate religion and morality. It implies that without religion the person making the argument would lose their morals. Edit: This is all getting way off topic anyway since the thread is supposedly about evolution. Do you have an opinion on that one?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Thanks again for your in depth answer you raised a few good points some of which I have copied into a document for future reference and as I mentioned am not arguing on the existence of god based on the Bible or other religious books people may have well written such books and corrupted them and a case can be made by each group whether their book have been corrupted or no but that does not mean that god does not exist Instead am trying to use a more rational and a logical approach as there are also other arguments which I haven't explored due to being caught in the previous one such as, where did our morality come from? the fine tuning or the universe and its fundamental constants do they not point toward an intelligent design? What am trying to say is that away from religion the scriptures and everything people say about belief . Believing in the existence of god is a rational and a logical belief
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Were do you think Judaism came from as a religion if you deny the existence of Moses? Christianity, who started it?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » The only thing I cited from Mohammed life was an authentic battle recorded in history which have happened before so option 3 is a good demonstration of your ignorance take the time to search before you replay my friend
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Yes your right and am not arguing otherwise, am basically saying that the atheists mocks the believers based on the irrationality to believe in a god; while the atheist himself cannot present any logical argument on why god does not exist.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » So far is just been me defending my argument
while the atheists have provided no logical or a rational reason why a god does not exist because simply the atheist cant produce a logical reason why a god does not exist
floggg wrote: » I dot believe either are organs. Again, I think it might be a good time to remind us of yoir scientific qualifications. Im going to assume it's not biology.
Grayson wrote: » The first reason is referred to as the cosmological argument. It's most common form is the one supplied by Thomas Aquinas. It's basic premise is that each effect can be related to a previous cause. And that cause has a previous cause etc and we can regress back to the original cause. Aquinas referred to God as the Unmoved Mover. That which created the universe but was not created himself. There's two problems with this. lets first of all say that we can trace everything with a domino effect back to the beginning, ie God. Well where did god come from? the logic which supports this argument says that something can't come from nothing, there has to be an ultimate cause. God solves that, but then using the same logic we have to ask where did god come from? Religious people can't supply an answer there. they use logic to get to that point and then abandon it.
Grayson wrote: » The second problem is that there can be an infinite regress. mathematically it's been proven that an infinite regress can exist. That means there doesn't have to be what Aristotle would refer to as an efficient cause.
Grayson wrote: » Your second argument is looping. You're using the content of the bible to prove the contents of the bible. If you accept that the bible is accurate about Jesus and Moses (and there's no evidence Moses existed, there's only a little for Jesus) then you also have to accept that Jephthah (who killed his innocent daughter because God told him to) and the fate of the Midianites (who were all killed except for the virgins who they raped) were real too. that God is evil. There's many examples of genocide in the old testament.
Grayson wrote: » This is the maddest bit. Elisha Is Jeered 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.yep. God killed or maimed 42 boys for calling someone Baldy.
Grayson wrote: » But if you want to say that there were men who were great and that we can assume that since they were great, they must have been telling the truth, then you're wrong. It's a kind of argument similar to an appeal to authority. Just because the source is great does not mean they were right. It's quite possible they were well meaning but had a mental disorder and heard voices (that's if they weren't lying. it's not like anyone has ever lied and started their own cult/religion). If that were the case i would have to say that scientology might be right.
Grayson wrote: » I'm a soft atheist. i don't believe in God. I don't think God exists. I will admit that i may be wrong, but I'm pretty damn certain I'm right. It's like the Russell teapot argument. He said you could tell me there's a teapot floating in orbit between the earth and moon. I can't disprove it, but I have absolutely no reason to believe it's there. (He said this before space travel)
Defender OF Faith wrote: » That's a very ignorant statement your saying that the followers of Jesus and those of Moses or in fact of any prophet throughout history were unable to judge whether a person is sane or not? based on what? because you my friend said so? what makes you the mentally fit individual to judge that such individuals who had more influence in this world then any scientist or philosopher ever had were mentally retarded? That's a very lazy way to escape the argument that such men were sincere and did receive orders and revelation from god that were corrupted over time.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » "Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss"
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » By plain reading you mean you decide the bits you like are literal and the rest is metaphoric? :pac:
J C wrote: » You guys seem to take everything literally.:)
J C wrote: » ... God didn't do this ... Elisha called down a curse on them ... another example of a person behaving badly ... not God.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » I provided two, a) there is no evidence for the existence of any god, and b) the gods we "know" are clearly human constructs. You have not managed to show how they don't apply or are wrong. May I remind you that just because you don't like an argument against your view doesn't mean that it either doesn't exist nor is it not valid. You have provided no logical reason for existence in god (because as we currently understand the universe there is none, "because it makes me feel better" is not a logical reason), in fact you do not understand logic even at its most basic meanings, you couldn't comprehend what a logical argument was if it bit you on the arse.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » You have provided no logical reason for existence in god (because as we currently understand the universe there is none, "
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » If you encountered a person today, claiming some divine revelation and they're a messenger from some god, would you not view them as either insane/deluded or some form of a scam artist, or would you be asking for seconds at the kool-aid bar? Why are these any different? There is no evidence, other then faith, that these men received orders/revelation from some god. Claiming its logical only demonstrates either you don't know what logic means, or you're deluded.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » if you're basing your faith on Pascal's wager, why not apply it to any and every god. Why not spread your bets, and believe in the lot of them, you've nothing to lose... hedging on the Abrahamic one could seriously piss Odin off, and he isn't to be f**ked with. Also throw a few bob to the Scientologists and Church of All Worlds...we know they're loons, but just in case like...
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bb1b435feca4d036f6db42bb67252c40.svg)
