Posted on Apr 12, 2015
Does God exist? Or, is there a God?
331K
2.24K
2.12K
41
41
0
What are the best arguments for or against the existence of God?
I mean an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent Supreme Being -- the eternally and necessarily extant Creator of the universe.
Atheists, Theists, Agnostics, Polytheists, Pantheists and anyone else are all welcome to weigh in!
I'm not asking what you believe, I'm asking about the best arguments for or against the existence of God.
To clarify omnibenevolence, I mean simply 'perfect goodness,' not "the quality of being kind and generous towards everyone and everything." CH (CPT) (Join to see)
I mean an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent Supreme Being -- the eternally and necessarily extant Creator of the universe.
Atheists, Theists, Agnostics, Polytheists, Pantheists and anyone else are all welcome to weigh in!
I'm not asking what you believe, I'm asking about the best arguments for or against the existence of God.
To clarify omnibenevolence, I mean simply 'perfect goodness,' not "the quality of being kind and generous towards everyone and everything." CH (CPT) (Join to see)
God
Religion
Atheism
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 332
5
5
0
There is zero scientific evidence for the existence of any omnipresent, omniscient god, and a heck of a lot of evidence of human gullibility.
(5)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Here's what I've come to realize about science and religion:
Science - based on facts and observations. These will NEVER fulfill your inner being. As much as we need scientific observations and evidence for medical, military, and other industrial advancement, your soul remains unquenched by them.
Religion - CANNOT be approached by scientific methods, based STRICTLY on faith, and trust (remember when the Bible says in Isaiah 55:8 '...my thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways...').
Now why would this omnipresent, omniscient God do that? So that we would TRUST HIS ways, NOT theorize, research, or derive him using our limited human ways
Science - based on facts and observations. These will NEVER fulfill your inner being. As much as we need scientific observations and evidence for medical, military, and other industrial advancement, your soul remains unquenched by them.
Religion - CANNOT be approached by scientific methods, based STRICTLY on faith, and trust (remember when the Bible says in Isaiah 55:8 '...my thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways...').
Now why would this omnipresent, omniscient God do that? So that we would TRUST HIS ways, NOT theorize, research, or derive him using our limited human ways
(1)
(0)
CPT Carl Kisely
There are actually disciplines that study human well being, including mental well being. And they are effective, without all the baggage that religion attaches to the issues.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I spent many years as a Christian, and many identifying as an Atheist. As I have matured, I look at the wonder that is a human being, that is the interaction of flora and fauna on this amazingly beautiful earth. I look at the incomprehensible expansiveness of the universe. A look into the night sky illustrates this, and the images we receive from space only serve to reinforce this sense of infinite expansiveness.
There is little doubt that organized "religion" of most stripes have been, at times, and to varying degrees, co-opted by humans acting in "ungodly" ways. My thought is that if there IS a god, He/She/It wouldn't approve of such actions in His/Her/It's name.
Today I identify as one who chooses to believe in a Creator. That is, in an entity that created this amazingly intricate, and incomprehensibly, seemingly infinite universe. Perhaps this reflects a lack of comprehension regarding the nature of the universe on my part. I have come to realize, and accept my inability to grasp it's seemingly infinite expanse, and find that the acceptance of the idea of a Creator means I don't have to ponder, or try to explain these things I've come to recognize as beyond my grasp.
That being said, I am not a Religionist. History has shown us the many religions of man, have served to organize this same inability to understand the nature of the world and universe around us, and to focus, and utilize, accumulated resources for good, or sometimes for evil, or even as a means of control.
Like government today, we have Judges, politicians, and pundits who feel obligated to tell us what THEY think WE should think about our Constitution, and our rights, when the information is right there for us to read and understand. The words are in our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitutional convention notes, the Federalist papers, and in the writings of our Framers. Likewise, the institution of Religion operates the same way. Instead of focusing on understanding what God, or his Son, Prophets, or Emissaries require of us, through the respective Holy Books, organized religion is more focused on following the leadership of those claiming to have special knowledge, or understanding somehow always culminating in the gathering of resources from believers.
So, while I do believe in a Creator, I don't believe in a religion. What I do believe in (Morally speaking) is individual rights. This means we each possess inherent rights that stem from our existence. We are living, thinking beings, and have the inherent right to live unmolested by others and to protect our lives, and our property. We have the right to freely associate with those willing to associate with us. Also conversely, this means we don't have the right to force others to associate, or to initiate force against the lives or property of others. (self defense is always warranted.) We institute governments among men to enforce these individual rights, and if we can keep government in check, they will not violate those rights, (though history has often shown otherwise in this regard.) Thomas Paine illustrated this concept brilliantly in "Common Sense" and Ayn Rand made well reasoned arguments in "The Virtue of Selfishness" on the nature of ethics and morality as the result of human nature and our environment, and not as a product of religion.
Lastly, I would make clear that as one who believes in individual rights, I respect the right of every individual to believe in whichever brand of Religion they choose, so long as that right doesn't infringe on my right to not be a Religionist.
Respectful Regards to all on both sides. Uncharacteristically, I find myself in the middle on this one! Who would have thought?
There is little doubt that organized "religion" of most stripes have been, at times, and to varying degrees, co-opted by humans acting in "ungodly" ways. My thought is that if there IS a god, He/She/It wouldn't approve of such actions in His/Her/It's name.
Today I identify as one who chooses to believe in a Creator. That is, in an entity that created this amazingly intricate, and incomprehensibly, seemingly infinite universe. Perhaps this reflects a lack of comprehension regarding the nature of the universe on my part. I have come to realize, and accept my inability to grasp it's seemingly infinite expanse, and find that the acceptance of the idea of a Creator means I don't have to ponder, or try to explain these things I've come to recognize as beyond my grasp.
That being said, I am not a Religionist. History has shown us the many religions of man, have served to organize this same inability to understand the nature of the world and universe around us, and to focus, and utilize, accumulated resources for good, or sometimes for evil, or even as a means of control.
Like government today, we have Judges, politicians, and pundits who feel obligated to tell us what THEY think WE should think about our Constitution, and our rights, when the information is right there for us to read and understand. The words are in our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitutional convention notes, the Federalist papers, and in the writings of our Framers. Likewise, the institution of Religion operates the same way. Instead of focusing on understanding what God, or his Son, Prophets, or Emissaries require of us, through the respective Holy Books, organized religion is more focused on following the leadership of those claiming to have special knowledge, or understanding somehow always culminating in the gathering of resources from believers.
So, while I do believe in a Creator, I don't believe in a religion. What I do believe in (Morally speaking) is individual rights. This means we each possess inherent rights that stem from our existence. We are living, thinking beings, and have the inherent right to live unmolested by others and to protect our lives, and our property. We have the right to freely associate with those willing to associate with us. Also conversely, this means we don't have the right to force others to associate, or to initiate force against the lives or property of others. (self defense is always warranted.) We institute governments among men to enforce these individual rights, and if we can keep government in check, they will not violate those rights, (though history has often shown otherwise in this regard.) Thomas Paine illustrated this concept brilliantly in "Common Sense" and Ayn Rand made well reasoned arguments in "The Virtue of Selfishness" on the nature of ethics and morality as the result of human nature and our environment, and not as a product of religion.
Lastly, I would make clear that as one who believes in individual rights, I respect the right of every individual to believe in whichever brand of Religion they choose, so long as that right doesn't infringe on my right to not be a Religionist.
Respectful Regards to all on both sides. Uncharacteristically, I find myself in the middle on this one! Who would have thought?
(5)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SPC Nathan Freeman I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, religions have a nasty habit of devolving into the very (often money oriented) political movements you cite. I agree that a simple, unfiltered relationship with one's creator would be the best course. Unfortunately, as religions organize, even on the most basic level, they take on many of the same attributes, structure, and intrusions as any other organization, institution, or government. THIS is why I am not a religionist. Respectful regards.
(0)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
Structure is not a bad thing in itself. There has to be some accountability or you have these yahoos taking scripture out of context ans starting cults and drinking nasty Cool aid. Where would the military be without structure? There is corruption in the military but there are also many good men that keep the yahoos in check. Yet you are in the military. We need good men who are strong enough to stop the corrupt ones. Some times this requires violence when the yahoos are violent.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
As you suggested above SPC Nathan Freeman, "Christianity at it's core is meant to be a relationship with the living God." On this we can agree. Once the "structure", hierarchy, and institutionalization are in place, the worshiper becomes ever more separated from his relationship with god, and more entrenched in relationships with people and institutions designed to facilitate, or to steer, or to influence one's beliefs. Crimes are crimes, and atrocities, are atrocities, whether religiously motivated or otherwise. Intrusions on the rights of others should all be treated similarly, regardless of the source, whether it be religion, government, or any other institution that is behind such actions.
(2)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
SSG Gerhard S. rd Seidel Our relationships with each other are a direct reflection of our relationship with our Creator. Structure doesn't always have to separate us from the Creator. When done properly, the structure will reinforce our relationship and make us stronger as we encourage each other. This is why we go on company runs and do group PT. We train together so that when we work together, we are more efficient, stronger, more confident.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
SFC (CA) Roland Dell
I don't try to force anyone to have faith - and I don't believe in bringing children into a fellowship - or anyone else' who is not born again of God.
I'm sure that is how it appears from your perspective... And I don't care either; as its not my job to try and convince others of the one I know. Have a great life!
I'm sure that is how it appears from your perspective... And I don't care either; as its not my job to try and convince others of the one I know. Have a great life!
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SFC (CA) Roland Dell i meant to make no personal implications. I'm sorry if i offended you.
In my experience, most come to religion because it 'seems' innate in their psyche, and/or they have a significant experience that compels them reject tenets of logical thinking, and/or they just don't bother with the issue properly and just identify as such. But this is just my experience, and in no way do i expect this to be true for all believers in gods.
In my experience, most come to religion because it 'seems' innate in their psyche, and/or they have a significant experience that compels them reject tenets of logical thinking, and/or they just don't bother with the issue properly and just identify as such. But this is just my experience, and in no way do i expect this to be true for all believers in gods.
(0)
(0)
SFC (CA) Roland Dell
I'm not offended in the least: 1 Corinthians 2:14 – But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(0)
(0)
SFC (CA) Roland Dell
This happend to me; yet I will never expect anyone to "believe" - as even if one was raised from the dead - they still would not believe... Google it if you like.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I believe there is a Creator, simply because attempts at explaining the universe without one are far less credible.
Let's get one things straight -- atheists are religious. One of Webster's definitions of religion is "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group," which does not necessitate believing in a god.
Atheists believe in the non-existence of any sort of God which, in spite of their arguments to the contrary, is an affirmative belief. They also believe in supernatural events, they just don't like calling them that. The Big Bang is an article of faith, a god replacement. Evolution is another one. Atheists like to frame the debate as science vs. religion, but it's really philosophy of origins vs. philosophy of origins.
In order to believe in either the Big Bang or evolution, people have to either suspend their belief in science at critical points, or simply ignore scientific contraindications. I find it amusing that people who are vociferous in their denial of god attribute many of the same god characteristics to evolution. They love to make fun of Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates, but they can't even describe how anything works in biology without using the language of intelligent design -- words like job, purpose, system, function.
Life, any form of it, is far too complex to have just accidentally happened.
Let's get one things straight -- atheists are religious. One of Webster's definitions of religion is "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group," which does not necessitate believing in a god.
Atheists believe in the non-existence of any sort of God which, in spite of their arguments to the contrary, is an affirmative belief. They also believe in supernatural events, they just don't like calling them that. The Big Bang is an article of faith, a god replacement. Evolution is another one. Atheists like to frame the debate as science vs. religion, but it's really philosophy of origins vs. philosophy of origins.
In order to believe in either the Big Bang or evolution, people have to either suspend their belief in science at critical points, or simply ignore scientific contraindications. I find it amusing that people who are vociferous in their denial of god attribute many of the same god characteristics to evolution. They love to make fun of Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates, but they can't even describe how anything works in biology without using the language of intelligent design -- words like job, purpose, system, function.
Life, any form of it, is far too complex to have just accidentally happened.
(5)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas - Senior Master Sergeant; I do not question what Jesus is recorded as saying, nor do I question what he is recorded as doing, nor do I question that some people of the day believed that Jesus was "The Son of God".
HOWEVER, none of those equate to PROOF of the proposition "Jesus WAS the actual and literal 'Son of God'.".
Equally, none of the evidence and/or arguments put forward to the contrary equate to PROOF of the postulate "Jesus WAS NOT the actual and literal 'Son of God'."
As before, we will all have the proof we need (one way or the other) when it is much too late for us to do anything about it.
Hopefully (for everyone's sake) we won't be contacted by an advanced extraterrestrial race who greets us on first contact with "We bring you greetings from the Islamic Peoples Monarchy of __[fill in the blank]__. Now why are you letting all of those Whites run around without their owners being present? And where are the females who are your actual government?".
PS - You have probably noticed by now that I HAVE NOT mentioned what my personal belief is regarding whether Jesus is (or is not) the actual and literal "Son of God". You aren't going to either. What I BELIEVE is totally irrelevant to the "proof" (either way) and the debate is totally irrelevant to the "reality" (either way).
People might want to pay some attention to the fact that the statement that starts out with "He that BELIEVETH in me shall ..." DOES NOT start out with "He that is convinced by absolutely irrefutable concrete evidence shall ...". (Which you COULD take as an indication that we are NOT supposed to KNOW if Jesus was the actual and literal "Son of God".)
HOWEVER, none of those equate to PROOF of the proposition "Jesus WAS the actual and literal 'Son of God'.".
Equally, none of the evidence and/or arguments put forward to the contrary equate to PROOF of the postulate "Jesus WAS NOT the actual and literal 'Son of God'."
As before, we will all have the proof we need (one way or the other) when it is much too late for us to do anything about it.
Hopefully (for everyone's sake) we won't be contacted by an advanced extraterrestrial race who greets us on first contact with "We bring you greetings from the Islamic Peoples Monarchy of __[fill in the blank]__. Now why are you letting all of those Whites run around without their owners being present? And where are the females who are your actual government?".
PS - You have probably noticed by now that I HAVE NOT mentioned what my personal belief is regarding whether Jesus is (or is not) the actual and literal "Son of God". You aren't going to either. What I BELIEVE is totally irrelevant to the "proof" (either way) and the debate is totally irrelevant to the "reality" (either way).
People might want to pay some attention to the fact that the statement that starts out with "He that BELIEVETH in me shall ..." DOES NOT start out with "He that is convinced by absolutely irrefutable concrete evidence shall ...". (Which you COULD take as an indication that we are NOT supposed to KNOW if Jesus was the actual and literal "Son of God".)
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
I updated the tags, because I didn't know how to do it when I wrote the previous posts. Sorry, didn't realize it was a breach of etiquette.
(0)
(0)
CPT Carl Kisely
1LT L S , I think the best bible historian out there is Bart Ehrman. He still remains a theologist, I believe, but the reason I appreciate his work is he reads the old languages, and has personally studied the fragments and documents that make up the bible and all the other such documents as well. Google his name and watch some of his lectures on Youtube. They are highly researched, academically honest presentations. He has no issue with the existence of Josephus, however Josephus did not live during the time of Jesus, and is therefore categorically ruled out as ever being a Jesus eyewitness. Nor did he ever write of any acts of Jesus. Bart Ehrman has read all the Josephus stuff. Of the two mentions at all about anything Christian in all his writing, there is one mention of "the Christians", which basically can prove there were Christians around, but not anything about the origin of the religion. The second Josephus mention was a weird, random bit in the middle of a sentence, where Josephus apparently just decides to mention that these Christians, followers of some dude WHO IS THE ONE TRUE GOD, did some stuff. It's a very awkward passage. I didn't quote it at all, I'm parodying it for clarity. But it's that awkward. Bart concludes that not only is it awkward in terms of the surrounding paragraph, and the life of Josephus after he wrote it (he didn't convert, for example), but he says in the original language it is not consistent with writings by Josephus in content or style. He concludes that passage was added later. (They used to have to copy books by hand, so there were frequently additions, subtractions, mistakes, intentional edits, etc.)
Or maybe Josephus was completely fake. But then you have to explain why the church wrote volumes and volumes, only to mention the religion in passing once, and awkwardly the second time, and never invent Josephus as a convert. I'm not saying that is wrong, just seems highly unlikely.
Or maybe Josephus was completely fake. But then you have to explain why the church wrote volumes and volumes, only to mention the religion in passing once, and awkwardly the second time, and never invent Josephus as a convert. I'm not saying that is wrong, just seems highly unlikely.
(2)
(0)
CPT Carl Kisely
1LT L S , thanks for the clarification. I am quite unaware of a single document that was written by an eyewitness to Jesus. And since I find this topic interesting for a lot of reasons, I have listened to and read numerous Christian apologists. They, too, are unaware of a single eyewitness account to Jesus. So, I'm inclined to say that right now, worldwide, there exists zero eyewitness accounts. Now, this single fact does not disprove a single claim made by Christianity. But it does make it highly suspect.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
There are multiple arguments for and against the existence of BIG-G "God." The most famous of these, or the most widely accepted can be found easily on any webpage around. Thomas Aquinas (a theologian...obviously) came up with one of the best arguments against the existence of God. If any 3 of the following things are true, the 4th cannot be and thus God does not exist. 1) Evil exists, 2) God is omnipotent, 3) God is omniscient, 4) God is omnibenevolent. This take the literal description of God from the new and old testament without any modern interpretation. Thomas Aquinas then goes on to make arguments both from the physical world (the external) and the perceived world (the internal) for the existence of God. One of the most "logical ones," is a modern one which Aquinas hints at but does not use, and I don't think he'd like it very much...Pascal's Wager. Look it up. Basically, it says that it is more logical to believe in God because there is everything to win if you do and everything to lose if you don't. There are 20 solid arguments for God in the physical world and 20 solid arguments for God in the non-physical sense. Some are better than others. One weak on is: "If most people in history believe it...then the chances are better than not that everyone is right versus everyone being wrong." That's a weak argument, but it's like saying Turkey is good and 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong. A much stronger argument and the one that I prefer is the argument from Causality....or what has been referred to as the "Aristotalian Prime Mover." For something to be moved there must be a cause. Not only must there be a cause, but that cause must be slightly greater than the thing being moved. It must have a prerequisite amount of "stuff" (call is mass or momentum or power...whatever) in order to move something. A flea can't move a Mac Truck...you get the point. Now...the Big Bang. A Big Bang requires a "Big Banger," so to speak. Something cannot be caused by nothing in the universe we live in...this would also require something that created the universe to be external to the universe as we understand it, especially since if it were a portion of the universe or contained within it, it would thus require something which caused it. If it is external, in a space we cannot understand, it is not bound by the rules which govern this universe and thus, may not require causality to exist...even though our tiny brains cannot fathom this level of existence. This is just one of many arguments. I suggest you take the time to pick up some of the philosophers in the ages and start reading about the questions that matter.
(5)
(0)
LTC Fred Wiske
actually, Christianity does not require ANY actions on the part of man to "gain entry into Heaven," nor certainly not to jump through ANY so-called "hoops of fire." Christianity only invites one to faith on the basis of extremely sound evidence and demonstration of truth through miraculous events indicating the truth of a Creator God... It demonstrates truth by providing convincing evidence. The God of Christianity is like a parental figure, who does in fact care about the welfare of His creation. It is like a parent pursuing a lost child, speaking through the universe, events and even people in numerous ways, seeking to restore a lost relationship. No, of course Odin doesn't care whether you believe in him or not. Odin is a myth and a product of human construct and in his characterization is not a heavenly Deity but rather a sorceror. From a biblical point of view, he would match the description of a demon rather than a God or heavenly angelic being, especially since demons that fell often sought fornication with human beings. The God of the Bible never does that. Demons are all about violating the will and choice and morality of human beings. The God of the Bible is not. The God of the Bible is not a "Big Banger," rather He is the Creator seeking to redeem, restore and give dignity to His creation. A very different picture from the one painted by an Odin or by paganism.
(1)
(0)
LTC Fred Wiske
by themselves, logical arguments for the existence of God are not really compelling, in my view. They all offer some reasons one might believe, but are not, in the end, compelling enough to encourage a solid foundation for belief or trustworthiness. Having studied them all in-depth at a Jesuit institution of higher learning, i found them quite inadequate in answering the questions I had and actually rather more frustrating than at all satisfying.
(0)
(0)
LTC Fred Wiske
as to the issue of whether one chooses the "wrong god," 1LT, your argument, strictly logically speaking isn't really an argument. Pascal's Wager is only concerned with the issue of belief in "a god," and does not address the question of "which god?" Only external evidence, scientific, historical, textual, archaeological, cultural and rational, can lead to a conclusion as to which faith system has the most going for it in terms of veracity and truth. Such a conclusion simply cannot be arrived at using logical systems of argument alone.
(0)
(0)
LTC Fred Wiske
and when i refer to "logical systems of argument," that is to specify philosophical method and not the rationality of argument itself.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I will put up another response later, however just a real quick short one that no one can argue with. we have a Holy Bible that has been around in existence since the beginning of time for approximately 7000 + years. how many more witnesses does a person need? I mean, we can fix people in our court system with less witnesses. the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were signed by less witnesses and we hold them trues to be self-evident even though we were not there to see the signing. we take it by faith and teachings that these things did happen in American history. same way with the Holy Bible on world history
(5)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
As you said though SSG Leonard Johnson , this is not an APA essay, or a university lecture hall. Wikipedia has it's problems, but is suitable for information on general issues such as that quoted by spc Kinas above, on general knowledge issues. One has to be more discerning, of course when using it as a source for matters that may be skewed by opinion, or politics. :-)
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Wikipedia is accurate enough for a basic definition. I thought it might be helpful.
Salut
Salut
(2)
(0)
SSG Leonard Johnson
of course there is the Lord God. Think about it, we're running through space without earth at what a billion miles per hour... And we haven't hit another planet?
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Yes, I am happy to say he does exist. I could get all Heisenburg on you in an attempt to explain that science has convinced me there is a god, but it's a long discussion and I'm not a great typist. If we seek HIS truth, we get closer to understanding. But we never fully understand.
There is. Be happy about it.
There is. Be happy about it.
(5)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
It comes down to use the Free Will that was given to you, but choose wisely. The humor here is that by recognizing that you have Free Will you have admitted that God exist.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
yeah you have so much free will that your silly god will turn you into a pillar of salt or throw you into a lake of fire if you do not do exactly what he says... Now that's freedom!!
(0)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
I think you are referring to the Old Testament. Check out the new stuff...forgiveness and love...better than salt and fire, so that's good news! It's only been around for about 2,000 years, so I can understand you not getting it yet.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Yes I'm very well aware of the carnage and war that christians fantasize about after reading the book of revelations...
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Why even ask this question? This is a matter of FAITH. Either you believe in GOD, a power greater then you or you do not. I have seen things happen that are unexplainable using logic and science, and i believe in science. I have a personal belief and do not have to explain or defend it in any way, it works for me.
In University when I returned in 2002 I have to take a few electives to finish out my degree (Psychology) and one was Philosophy. It seemed strange to me that many of the same arguments used in the 18 and 19th centuries to prove that God existed were used in the 21st century to prove that God did not exist, check it out for yourself.
Does God exist? If you have FAITH, God (in his/her many names) exists and you need no proof. If you have no faith then God does not exist for you and NO proof will make you believe.
BTW - go out on the deck of a DARK USN ship in the middle of the ocean and look at the sky.
In University when I returned in 2002 I have to take a few electives to finish out my degree (Psychology) and one was Philosophy. It seemed strange to me that many of the same arguments used in the 18 and 19th centuries to prove that God existed were used in the 21st century to prove that God did not exist, check it out for yourself.
Does God exist? If you have FAITH, God (in his/her many names) exists and you need no proof. If you have no faith then God does not exist for you and NO proof will make you believe.
BTW - go out on the deck of a DARK USN ship in the middle of the ocean and look at the sky.
(5)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
CPT Carl Kisely I adore you try to change my mind. It has not persuaded me because i believe you are incorrect, but that is your belief. and if you really want to know I have a Smart Car; my transmission is Automatic/Manual (computer controlled driver selectable).
(0)
(0)
CPT Carl Kisely
LOL! Perfect! Pascal's wager fails again, and on something I presumed to be fairly one-or-the-other! Hey, I don't presume to change people's mind by a single post. I do, however, wish to bring new information to intelligent people, who can then evaluate that information. At the very least, I want people to realize that their views can be incorrect- even if they still believe their view, it could be wrong. I could also be wrong. But I am not going to be swayed by terrible arguments and/or evidence. So, you have faith in a god. That god could be defined as manual transmission. Or automatic transmission. Or, there could be something I have not yet thought of, that of computer controlled driver selectable automatic/manual transmission god. And I welcome whatever version you believe god to be, and your reason for believing so. But if there is a god, he has some characteristics. Something. What are those?
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
How does Pascal's wager fail?! As one would expect from a mathematician, it is mathematically logical. Even common sense tells you it's always wise to bet/wager on what's considered "a sure thing," where the chances of winning out weigh the consequences of losing. One has nothing to lose in wagering on a divine creator to whom one would one day give an account for ones life. One has (potentially) everything to lose (the "soul," a hypothetical paradise) in unbelief/Atheism. Simple and logical...
(0)
(0)
CPT Carl Kisely
LOL! Thanks, 1LT L S . I concur wholeheartedly. A more sober response to SFC (Join to see) , there are two major problems with Pascal. I have already illustrated the first one in this thread but will say again for the purpose of clarity.
1) False dichotomy. SFC Hoppe, you are correct that a sure bet is better than a long shot. However, while the math may be correct, the story problem has been artificially tweaked to "force" only two possible outcomes. This is also a sales technique of used car salesmen, I believe. I will give you a new example:
I place two cards face down in front of you. I tell you that if you pick the Queen of hearts, I will give you $1000. However, if you don't pick the queen, I will hit you along the side of the head. I then flip the first card over, and that card is a 5 of clubs. I tell you again that if you pick the Queen of Hearts, I will give you $1000.
What is the correct answer? Mathematically, as you pointed out, you had a 50% chance. Further, I have given you the knowledge to eliminate the one card from contention. In a False Dichotomy, the answer is indeed the other card.
In REALITY, however, the Queen is still in the deck of cards in my hand. It does not matter at all if you knew that a deck was more than 2 cards, or if you just thought that I meant among these two cards. Fact is, you were wrong. Way off, as a matter of fact.
Pascal is mathematically INCORRECT by the simple addition of even ONE other god to the equation. Now, the choices are three. A deck of cards, with 52 cards, means even if you understood my ruse, you would still have a 1 in 50 chance of picking the correct card. And in reality, there are 4000 CURRENTLY WORSHIPPED gods in the world at this very minute. So, that's why Pascal is a total failure. He's a gullible sap to the card game.
2) The other thing that is just wrong with Pascal's wager is the dishonesty. He is effectively saying "we don't have any reason whatsoever to believe in this god, but I'm going to pretend to believe in this god so that if he's real, I get a spot in heaven." THAT is how flippant his belief in god? For that matter, who is this god that is perfectly okay with his followers basically hoping that he exists because they just hope they don't get punished? I'm imagining a guy sitting on a couch watching the game that finally yells "yeah, it looks fine" to his wife just so she'll quit asking questions during a big play. He figures, correctly, that answering the question in the way she wants will produce the end he wants. He doesn't actually care about the correctness of the statement. This is what Pascal has set up. The correctness of the answer is a sidebar to providing an answer that seems correct to a selfish end.
1) False dichotomy. SFC Hoppe, you are correct that a sure bet is better than a long shot. However, while the math may be correct, the story problem has been artificially tweaked to "force" only two possible outcomes. This is also a sales technique of used car salesmen, I believe. I will give you a new example:
I place two cards face down in front of you. I tell you that if you pick the Queen of hearts, I will give you $1000. However, if you don't pick the queen, I will hit you along the side of the head. I then flip the first card over, and that card is a 5 of clubs. I tell you again that if you pick the Queen of Hearts, I will give you $1000.
What is the correct answer? Mathematically, as you pointed out, you had a 50% chance. Further, I have given you the knowledge to eliminate the one card from contention. In a False Dichotomy, the answer is indeed the other card.
In REALITY, however, the Queen is still in the deck of cards in my hand. It does not matter at all if you knew that a deck was more than 2 cards, or if you just thought that I meant among these two cards. Fact is, you were wrong. Way off, as a matter of fact.
Pascal is mathematically INCORRECT by the simple addition of even ONE other god to the equation. Now, the choices are three. A deck of cards, with 52 cards, means even if you understood my ruse, you would still have a 1 in 50 chance of picking the correct card. And in reality, there are 4000 CURRENTLY WORSHIPPED gods in the world at this very minute. So, that's why Pascal is a total failure. He's a gullible sap to the card game.
2) The other thing that is just wrong with Pascal's wager is the dishonesty. He is effectively saying "we don't have any reason whatsoever to believe in this god, but I'm going to pretend to believe in this god so that if he's real, I get a spot in heaven." THAT is how flippant his belief in god? For that matter, who is this god that is perfectly okay with his followers basically hoping that he exists because they just hope they don't get punished? I'm imagining a guy sitting on a couch watching the game that finally yells "yeah, it looks fine" to his wife just so she'll quit asking questions during a big play. He figures, correctly, that answering the question in the way she wants will produce the end he wants. He doesn't actually care about the correctness of the statement. This is what Pascal has set up. The correctness of the answer is a sidebar to providing an answer that seems correct to a selfish end.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I will start with one of the early Christian Church thinkers Thomas Aquinas:
Note this is not arguing for a 'Christian' God, just the existence of any God.
Five arguments for the existence of God.
the unmoved mover;
the first cause;
the argument from contingency;
the argument from degree;
the teleological argument ("argument from design").
I can start a thread on each argument if this helps...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae
Note this is not arguing for a 'Christian' God, just the existence of any God.
Five arguments for the existence of God.
the unmoved mover;
the first cause;
the argument from contingency;
the argument from degree;
the teleological argument ("argument from design").
I can start a thread on each argument if this helps...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae
Quinque viae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Quinque viæ (Latin, usually translated as "Five Ways" or "Five Proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica.[1] They are:
(5)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
SPC (Join to see), when you want someone to know that you're talking to them, tag them. I just happened to find this shortly after you commented.
As to your actual comment, no, that is totally not what I meant, at all. I meant that I was looking for actual thought-out arguments for or against God. LTC John Shaw offered a number of specific, reasoned, arguments for God. Many people offered only personal experiences, or even statements of belief. These are great as far as they go, but they are not what I asked for, exactly. LTC Shaw provided exactly what I asked for.
As to your actual comment, no, that is totally not what I meant, at all. I meant that I was looking for actual thought-out arguments for or against God. LTC John Shaw offered a number of specific, reasoned, arguments for God. Many people offered only personal experiences, or even statements of belief. These are great as far as they go, but they are not what I asked for, exactly. LTC Shaw provided exactly what I asked for.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Unmoved_mover
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_contingency
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_degree
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Teleological_argument
Arguments against
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_contingency
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_degree
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Teleological_argument
Arguments against
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SPC (Join to see)
Thomas Aquinas is an apologist. Any argument that requires presupposition that is not grounded by empirically verifiable evidence isn't worth my time. Why is it worth anyone else's? People go on like this justifies their entire worldview. In reality, they are poor arguments and have nothing to do with gods describe in OP.
That is my justification and reason for my lack of belief in OP's gods: Lack of evidence and poor argumentation.
Thomas Aquinas is an apologist. Any argument that requires presupposition that is not grounded by empirically verifiable evidence isn't worth my time. Why is it worth anyone else's? People go on like this justifies their entire worldview. In reality, they are poor arguments and have nothing to do with gods describe in OP.
That is my justification and reason for my lack of belief in OP's gods: Lack of evidence and poor argumentation.
(3)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
I know he is. I also believe that presuppositionalists are not worth arguing with. Iron chariots is a counter-apologetics wiki. It references a point in the old testament in which though god was with the Israelites they were defeated for their enemies had chariots of iron.
All I was doing was providing the counter arguments to the long since defused Thomas Aquinas arguments (since I don't feel like typing them out myself).
All I was doing was providing the counter arguments to the long since defused Thomas Aquinas arguments (since I don't feel like typing them out myself).
(1)
(0)
6
5
1
SPC Nathan Freeman
CW3 (Join to see) you never explained how the miracles were performed. For example, how did Jesus rise from the dead after being brutally beaten and crucified?
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
I never attempted to explain these suposed miracles because the attempt to do so would lend validity to the belief that he ever lived and these things happened. And there is no way I am going to be a part of that. Also, I do not have to explain these miracles because I am not the one making extraordinary claims , you are. therefore, the responsibilty of proof lies in your court.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
It takes ZERO faith to understand how things came to be. That's the wonder of the scientific method, it is without the influence of our beliefs. Science leads you to answers you don't like, it doesn't mean they are not true, it means you need to stop believeing in whatever it is that science just proved was wrong. It takes a total and complete suspension of reality to believe in an intelligent designer. The world around you is proof that absolutist ideology is no longer cutting it.
I will give you this, I cannot prove that there is no god, I don't have to, the ones making the extraordinary claim do. But I will accept that there is the possibility that I could be wrong. I could be so wrong that all of taunts and points will be used against me in the after life. So be it, I will go with what actually is, not what I want it to be. But I will hedge my bet by accepting that there is the possibility.
I will give you this, I cannot prove that there is no god, I don't have to, the ones making the extraordinary claim do. But I will accept that there is the possibility that I could be wrong. I could be so wrong that all of taunts and points will be used against me in the after life. So be it, I will go with what actually is, not what I want it to be. But I will hedge my bet by accepting that there is the possibility.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
So I am still waiting to hear about those velociraptors? Anything?
How about that peer reviewed article'journal?
How about that peer reviewed article'journal?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google