Arguments for and against the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Alan McDougall, Jul 10, 2010.

  1. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    No. Who said that the Universe is the same thing as HTML... The comparison was only made about a 'creator'... A picture created by a 1000 people is still created, in that they are the 'same'.

    Natural beings are a result of the universal laws... The beings may be imperfect, but we can use the code to create something more 'perfect'.. Which is part of the application of science? You using the same code, you don't create a new one doing it (unlike HTML).

    Great argument.

    That the universal laws can be seen as a coded language.

    Well quoting 'be and it is' and the natural process is really talking about the mechanism of creation, which is 'how it works'.. And the relevance is that from a perspective that the universal laws are a code, it can be assumed that a creator exists.. You may not agree with the assumption, but there is nothing illogical about the assumption.

    The specifics and similarities of HTML and DNA are not the point of the analogy... You're trying to pinpoint differences when the main point is that HTML has been created, and that creation of HTML ie the bolded text or anything that 'results' from HTML were given conciousness that they could not identify their creator- they could only look at the code to their existence.

    Again you are trying to point out things that are actually irrelevant. Its true that it is a 'way to look at things'.

    It doesn't matter if HTML was created by a single intelligence or it borrowed things from other intelligence or what not. Those specifics don't matter. If HTML has many creators it does not mean that therefore everything must have multiple creators or multiple intelligences contributing to the code. That is why the specifics of this are irrelevant. The point is that HTML has creator/creators. The universe can too... how many 'creators' does it have is not the point of the analogy. For I care it could be Diego and Dora the Explorer. The numbers of creator is irrelevant.

    2+2 =4 is a human thinking method- its a code to describe reality. Obviously you can create your own system to describe it. one cookie could be presented through a symbol instead of the numeral 1. But it is still describing an actual thing.

    Also I'm not talking about the 'law of DNA'- but the laws of the physical world, the very fundamental things. Or you could say the 'laws that started everything else'.

    Sure you are imagining that this 'creator' is God... but an argument for the existence of a creator is still an argument. What you take that creator to be is your own choice. Because once an argument for a creator can be made... The further 'imagination' is justified under the assumption of a creator.

    Assumptions are assumptions for a reason.... The assumption that everything follows physical laws and can be described by a system- something that physics pursue is also an a priori assumption. But it is a logical assumption from their point of view.

    Did the OP specify a god for the discussion? I am presenting an 'argument for' the existence of a creator. And that creator very may well be God.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Arguments against:

    * All arguments for God that reference reality can be demonstrated to be incorrect (including all the ones in this thread).
    * Some arguments for God that reference personal experience can be demonstrated to be incorrect.
    * The concept of God is a naturally occuring psychological phenomenon rooted in anthropomorphism and social heirarchy.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    I am happy that I am not reducing my existence and wonderful human experience to nothing.

    anthropomorphism... since we come from no where...

    It looks like many people have simply no good arguments against the existence of God.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    How is that relevant?

    These are unrelated concepts, the latter of which isn't supported by any evidence.

    Mine are solid. It basically can demonstrate all human claims of God as being false as well as providing a reason why human claims of God exist in the first place.
     
  8. Sock puppet path GRRRRRRRRRRRR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    If you had enough sense or were not so indoctrinated you would realize that you had just read 3.
     
  9. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Perhaps you can show the demonstration of the arguments you made that can be 'demonstrated'?

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Yosef:

    No they don't. You're just stretching and bending the wording of your holy book in order to try to make it mean something that it doesn't say. I'd say that any imam would chastise you for twisting the words of God.

    You see only what you want to see. That's a problem.

    According to sources on the web, the term does not mean "weaved material" at all, but more like "pathways" or "paths" or "passages".

    In other words, you're twisting the words of the Qur'an to suit yourself. Have you no respect for your holy book?
     
  11. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Of course. Submit any instance of this:

    * An argument for God that references reality.

    And a few of these:

    * Some arguments for God that reference personal experience.

    And I'll demonstrate.

    Thanks,

    -Ken
     
  12. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    I think that we should be careful not to make any important claims or base our belief / (lack of thereof) on lack of knowledge. I am aware that some interpretations (many of which date back to 300 or 600 years after revelation) suggested "pathways" as interpretation for the key word in that verse. I think this happened due to the fact that it was highly unconceivable for those people to think as the sky was made of weaved fabric. They made an attempt to explain the verse but today we can see that the literal meaning of the word is the correct one.

    Al-Hobok means nothing else but weaved material. Habaka something means weaved something. If God wanted to say pathways He would have said: torok, dorop, masarat, sobol etc...

    I can assure you that I take the Book seriously and I would never say that God says something that is not there / correct. God warns people against doing such a thing. The article I referred to is written by an award winning researcher of the Holy Quran - as far as I know there have never been any accusations against that man. I have told earlier that some people made false claims in the past and they paid high price for that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashad_Khalifa

    The verse I have discussed above is found at The Dispersing 51:7 where God says that the sky is made of weaved structure - what scientists refer to in recent years as Cosmic webs.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
  13. Alan McDougall Alan McDougall Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    I would like to strongly bring in now the arguments against the existence of God

    http://atheism.about.com/od/argumen...st_God_Atheological_Arguments_for_Atheism.htm


    1. Does God Exist?

    Arguments Against God: Atheological Arguments for Atheism
    What are the principle arguments in favor of atheism? Why is atheism more reasonable or rational than theism? Among the arguments raised are those from evil, from non-belief, from cosmology, from incoherence and more.
    What is God? @ What is Atheism? @

    Scientifically, God Does Not Exist: Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist

    A popular objection to atheists' arguments and critiques of theism is to insist that one's preferred god cannot be disproven - indeed, that science itself is unable to prove that God does not exist. This position depends upon a mistaken understanding of the nature of science and how science operates. In a very real and important sense, it is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist - just as science is able to discount the existence of a myriad of other alleged beings.

    Evil Conflicts with the Existence of God: God Doesn't Care or God Doesn't Exist
    Closely associated with taking action that should be considered immoral is the fact that there is so much evil in the world today. If there are any gods, why don't they act to eliminate it? The absence of substantive action against evil would be consistent with the existence of evil or at least indifferent gods, which is not impossible, but few people believe in such gods.

    Most claim that their gods are loving and powerful; the suffering on Earth makes their existence implausible.

    No Reason to Believe in Gods: Without Good Reasons, Belief is Impossible

    Perhaps the most basic reason for not believing in any gods is the absence of good reasons for doing so. Since the burden of support lies first and foremost with those making the positive the claim — the theistic, religious believers who say their god exists — non-believers don't need reasons not to believe. They may help, but they aren't particularly necessary. Instead, what is required are reasons to believe.

    Life is Material, not Supernatural: We Are Material, Natural Beings
    Most religions say that life is much more than the flesh and matter we see around us. In addition, there is supposed to be some sort of spiritual or supernatural realm behind it all and that our "true selves" is spiritual, not material.

    All evidence, though, points to life being a purely natural phenomenon. All evidence indicates that who we really are — our selves — is material and dependent upon the workings of the brain. If this is so, religious and theistic doctrines are wrong.

    Faith is Unreliable & Unreasonable: Faith is Not a Source of Knowledge

    A common characteristic of both theism and religion is their reliance on faith: belief in the existence of a god and in the truth of religious doctrines is neither founded upon nor defended by logic, reason, evidence, or science. Instead, people are supposed to have faith — a position they wouldn’t consciously adopt with just about any other issue. Faith, though, is an unreliable guide to reality or means for acquiring knowledge. Faith can be used to defend anything and everything equally.

    Gods & Theists Behave Immorally: How Can Moral Gods Behave Immorally?
    In most religions, gods are supposed to be the source of all morality. For most believers, their religion represents an institution for promoting an ideal model of morality. In reality, though, religions are responsible for widespread immorality and gods have characteristics or histories which make them worse than the most vile human serial killer. No one would tolerate such behavior on the part of a person, but when with a god it all becomes laudable — even an example to follow.

    Gods Are Too Similar to Believers: Gods Probably Created in the Image of Humans

    A few cultures, like ancient Greece, have postulated gods which appear to be as natural as human beings, but in general gods are supernatural. This means that they are fundamentally different from human beings or anything on earth. Despite this, however, theists consistently describe their gods in ways that make the supernatural appear almost mundane. Gods share so many characteristics with humans that it has been argued that gods were made in the image of man.

    Religion & Religious Doctrines are Self-Contradictory: How Can They All Be True?

    No religion is perfectly consistent when it comes to doctrines, ideas, and history. Every ideology, philosophy, and cultural tradition has inconsistencies and contradictions, so this shouldn't be surprising — but other ideologies and traditions aren't alleged to be divinely created or divinely sanctioned systems for following the wishes of a god. The state of religion in the world today is more consistent with the premise that they are man-made institutions.

    Gods' Contradictory Characteristics: Making God Impossible to Exist
    Theists often claim that their gods are perfect beings; they describe gods, however, in contradictory and incoherent ways. Numerous characteristics are attributed to their gods, some of which are impossible and some combinations of which are impossible. As described, it's unlikely or impossible for these gods to exist. This doesn't mean that no god could possibly exist, just that the ones theists claim to believe in don't.

    Too Many Gods, Too Many Religions: All Can't Be True, But All Can Be False
    It is difficult to credit any one religion as being True or any one god as being True when there have been so many throughout human history. None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other.

    Why Christianity and not Judaism? Why Islam and not Hinduism? Why monotheism and not polytheism? Every position has had its defenders, all as ardent as those in other traditions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

    The Universe Does Not Require Gods

    The concept of 'god' can mean many different things - or perhaps it can mean anything, given the apparent limitless number of characteristics which various believers assign to their gods.

    Any time someone asks you why you don't believe in any gods, make sure you ask them what they mean by 'god' in the first place. Chances are, it's simply not something which requires belief.
    God & Causation: Temporal Requirements for Causes to Exist

    It is common to argue that because everything we experience appears to have a cause for its existence, then the totality of everything (the universe) must also have a cause for its existence. It is assumed that the universe cannot be self-caused, so therefore the cause must be outside the universe - God, in other words. Is this a legitimate argument?

    Immorality of the Biblical God: Can God be both Moral and Immoral?
    An important objection against the existence of the god of the Bible focuses on this god's character.

    The god of the Bible isn't simply an ideal abstraction; in Western religious traditions we find many stories about what God has done or commanded believers to do. Often such actions are contrary to basic moral principles; at the same time, God is described as the source of morality. How can this be?

    Argument from Virtue: Can a Perfect God be Virtuous?
    The God traditionally believed in under philosophical theism must be all-virtuous, but certain virtues (like courage) can only be developed in the context of flawed, fallible creatures. Ergo, a perfect God cannot be all-virtuous. If God is perfect, God cannot be virtuous; if God is virtuous, God cannot be perfect. One or the other attribute must give way and if theists insist on ascribing both to God, then God is logically impossible.

    Omnipotence and Evil: Can Evil Exist with an Omnipotent God?
    Is the existence of evil compatible with the existence of an omnipotent god with the ability to desire to eliminate evil? That seems unlikely and many atheological arguments have been based upon just that. A solid argument makes the existence of the traditional God unlikely at best - and belief in it unreasonable.

    Perfect Creator: Is It Possible for a Perfect Creator to Exist? (First Argument)
    Two qualities often attributed to God are perfection and being the ‘creator‘ of the universe (if not more). Are these qualities compatible or incompatible?

    There are two good arguments that they are incompatible; and to the degree that they are valid, the existence of such a god is improbable at the very least, if not impossible.

    Who Made God? An Atheological Argument from Design

    Who Made God? According to some, nothing so complex as the universe could exist without having been designed by a creator. But where does that leave the traditional concept of God? Isn't God more complex than the universe? Doesn't God require a creator?

    Arguments for Atheism
    What are the principle arguments in favor of atheism? Why is atheism more reasonable or rational than theism? Among the arguments raised are those from evil, from non-belief, from cosmology, from incoherence and more.

    Is God Dead?
    When Nietzsche wrote that "God is dead," he wasn't talking about the death of a literal god, but instead the death of a shared cultural belief in a god which had long dominated European culture and history. Read why...
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Why?
    The OP stated:
    You think a consensus has been reached on any of the arguments for?

    And why have you done a cut and paste of such a long document and posted it without comment?
    Surely it would be more sensible to take one argument (either for or against) at a time and thrash that out before moving on to the next? Or were you actually aiming for a chaotic thread?
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    Gee, I had no idea you were going to say that, Lori. Right out of the blue.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    Picking through the lies, ignorance and general insanity of the believers here, they have yet to make a case for their gods. This god exists because a butterfly has owl eyes and that god exists because he rocked my world and some other god exists because the big bang is in scriptures. So much garbage.

    Just produce your god and we'll all believe in him.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Supposedly you said that any that were mentioned in this thread... I'm sure that means you must have read the thread and arguments in it... I was interesting in your demonstration, or did you make the claim without reading the arguments in the thread?

    Read the thread if you haven't, and please 'demonstrate'. The thread is only 3 pages, so I'm sure it won't be a burden.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Wrong. Since you insist upon this "creation" word, let me put it differently: God is nowhere within this "creation" activity. In other way of saying this, only existing things can engage with "creation" activity. Magical imaginative characters (such as God) do not fit the requirements of provable existence, they have no place in what we call Universe. They are mind constructions of human brain such as Superman. God can only exist (therefore can create) in human imagination, not in reality. In order to claim otherwise, one must come up with:

    a)Definition of God
    b)Definition of Reality and imagination

    How can you create something "perfect"? What is your criteria for perfection. If nothing is perfect as you admitted, how can you conclude that code can create something perfect?

    Some of them such as DNA working mechanism. But how are you planning to find a code for electromagnetic force which is also a universal law?

    Again and again I tried to define it: What you call as "creation" is a stubborn insist upon a word which has secret door to introduce the idea of God to the natural equation.No, nature doesn't work like that, it simply doesn't work. I demonstrated that there is no starting point or end point for things in existence. Everything exist within a temporal condition and nothing is created out of nowhere. Everything has its own evolution history and dynamics side by side other beings or natural phenomenons. Even one thing can create something else, this should still be within the scope of existence.

    Again, repeating yourself with false assumptions such as "universal laws are code" therefore "creator exists". Who told you that Universal laws are code in the first place? Take DNA; it is a code but it is not created: It took nearly a billion year for DNA to take form: A billion year, can you grasp this time period? All these asteroid bombardments, climate changes, chemical reactions, this and that for a billion of year. Can you grasp the idea that what you call DNA is actually sophisticated RNA? What kind of divine creator would have spent so much time as well as so much trial and error to make "imperfect" beings?

    Irrelevant to what? Acceptance of a creator? You are right there...


    According to this logic, we can also come up with a conclusion that it doesn't matter whether universe is created or not: Because it was either created by an intelligent creator or evolved through time and conditions will give us same result. Both conditions are mere "specifics". If this is the case, why don't you simply give up the idea that there should be a God? What's the difference?

    Drop the creator then. If numbers of creator is irrelevant and we can imagine as much as we like, why are we arguing on it? By the way, just to repeat, I don't know any creator other than human beings in this Universe: They create everything, including imaginary Gods.


    If you are not talking about DNA when you say code, but you are talking about "the laws of physical world, the very fundamental things", can you also specify (give names) what you are talking about when you say "code"?

    This is the topic of this thread. But it's not an argument for me, it's argument for those who believe in Gods.

    That's what your are trying to do, aren't you? "...once an argument for a creator can be made..." And I completely agree with the rest of the statement: "The further "imagination" is justified under the assumption of a creator". Yet, here is the issue: How can you make an argument for a creator? And please, keep it within the existence.


    Yes but physics (unlike religions) can continuously prove its assumptions. It doesn't say "this is what we assume believe it!". This is structurally different I guess, what do you think?


    That's why we need to define "what is God", "what are its features", "what type of existence it possess" and relevant questions. If we don't do that, if we say the ontology of God is irrelevant, we can also confidentially claim that "God and the idea of God is irrelevant". Irrelevant to what? Irrelevant to anything and everything in physical Universe and its beings, including us.

    Do you want to follow this path? Or alternatively, if the shape and power of God is irrelevant, we can discuss how the first idea of God had been evolved among human cultures. But I bet we should still ask the same question: "Which God?"
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
  19. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    I guess I'm giving you the opportunity to pick and choose; however, it sounds like you don't care which ones I choose. Please confirm that and then I'll make some random choices.
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,919
    Alan McDougall,

    1) "Meaning" has no bearing on whether or not God (not "gods") actually exist.
    2) Science cannot prove Gods' existence unless we change the meaning of "Supreme Being", or "Original Cause", which define His/Its qualities (where's the fun in that).
    3) How does/can Gods' existence contradict history?
    4) If you have insufficient reason to believe in God, then fair enough.

    They all concur that "God" is the Original Cause, and is the Supreme Being.

    "Known facts" that apparently "contradict", are works in progress.
    Seeming "contradictions" can be explained once, time, place, circumstances, and spiritual nature, are taken into consideration.

    This would have no bearing on whether or not God actually exists or not.

    "Evil" appears to be like beauty, that is, it's "in the eye of the beholder.
    There are few definitions which would universally be accepted across the board at all times (if any).
    I would be inclined to accept that "evil" is "absence of God", as darkness is "absence of light", and is therefore a choice accepted by those intelligent enough to understand the difference.
    The material world in which we find ourselves in, is a world of duality, or opposites, which is how we define our experiences, and learn what is favourable and what is not.

    This is a silly argument.
    The design is in accordance with the needs of the particular individual, for
    the spec of time it needs to work.

    If runners get a painful stitch, then don't run. Simple.

    Another silly argument.
    From all scriptures we can understand that we are separate from the body.
    And, that part of us, is part an parcel of God.
    As God has freewill, we also have free will, and as such our destiny is in our hands.

    That amounts to belief, as it requires material proof, or evidence of Gods' actual existence. More importantly, it assumes that if God exists, it must exist as a natural being, thereby creating their own definition of God.

    "I can't see God with my eyes, therefore God does not exist"
    This is their best argument, albeit very simplistic.
    The problem here is, humans have a capacity to percieve, and conceive of things which go beyond physical sight.

    See above.

    jan.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
  21. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I did say that God is not in this creation, as I'm not in the HTML even if I created it (suppose). Secondly, 'creation activity'? The code was created to create whatever has been created, all that matters is the creation of the code.

    Its part of the code. How is it defined that it is the electromagnetic force- what gives it its properties- where is the 'information' coming from?


    Evolution is part of the natural process and thus part of the code... Having evolutionary history doesn't negate the code from being a created thing. "Starting point, or end point" for things in existence- but I'm not talking about 'things'- I'm talking about laws (i.e code), you can't demonstrate they don't have a beginning or an end.


    A system of code can be written in another system of code. What is physics? Its simply the field that tries to duplicate the physical world into a systematic code that is understandable to us in the form of Math.

    Since we can write a code for describing the world, it is then possible that the Universe is is based on a code.

    Your assumption is that DNA is not created... if it is a product of a code that was created then it is created... Secondly your assumption is that the creator can not choose to send input commands to the code to create something after a billion years.. The 'billion years' mean nothing for a creator who isn't even in the time zone.... Time is relative? For all we know it could have been created 'instantly' but which is relatively billion years?

    There is a difference in how you view the world. A creator vs no creator. Secondly I said that it can be logically assumed (if one wishes to make the assumption) that a creator exists- not that it must exist.. If there is no difference why don't you give up the idea that it was all nature, as you seem to suggest there is no difference?

    Sure... I already made this point before... You acknowledge a creator that you know exists within the code- not one external to it.. There is no surprise in that.

    Go ask a physicist what the fundamental laws of the physical world are, that lead to everything... I don't have to write a physics books on this forum.

    Well because you don't accept the assumption. That's your choice. But the assumption is not illogical.

    Don't confuse an argument vs proof.

    I already have.

    Unfortuantely the discussion is not about the specifics of religions, ie. their laws and so forth. Its about God.... Physicists work under the assumption that the physical world can be described in a mathematical model- if not, they wouldn't continue their research. There is not a 'continous proof' this assumption.. The assumption that everything is physical can never be proven.


    Why? When the point is not to support any specific God but the idea of a creator...

    Lets take God to be: a creator of the universe.. Simple...

    If you want to name this God you can say he is from the religion 786ism.. Happy now?

    No further description is needed for the purposes of discussing a creator. He can be black, white, not all knowing whatever.. All other characteristics apart from being the creator would be irrelevant to the discussion in an argument for a 'creator' (nothing else).

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
  22. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Be my guest.. I would like to go through all of them one by one.. Since its one by one, I don't care what is chosen as we would get to all of them 1 by 1 :shrug:

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Ok.
     

Share This Page