Does god exist?

[PooZy]

Thanks for posting a link at least.
I'll try to keep this brief and I'll post links to more in depth answers which interestingly enough I've already answered. These go in order, so if you want to know what I’m talking about, go to the link that’s quoted directly above mine. I did skip some since its quite obvious the arguments have nothing to do with gods existence—in fact, they can’t even be considered arguments.
• “Inconsistent Revelations” do not necessarily prove that a God doesn’t exist. In fact, if we are trying to prove only that A god exists; not allah, or YWH, or something, then the multiple world religions we see today would lend credit to the idea that perhaps the idea that a deity exists is based on a common truth that has been changed over time. I myself choose to believe in Christianity since it interprets God in the best way.
• The Problem of Evil: In what way does this have anything whatsoever to do with God’s existence in any way shape or form? You have gone from the existence of God to his characteristics; this isn’t an evidence against gods existence, its evidence against his characteristics. See my rebuttal here: http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Doe...=1#post1755652
• Destiny of the Unevangelized: Again, what does this have to do with the existence of God?
• Poor Design: Give me an example of this poor design; additionally, what does this have to do with Gods existence? Just because humans make mistakes in some computer doesn’t mean they don’t exist, does it? See my rebuttal here: http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Doe...ed#post1807993
• Occams razor: The naturalistic theory can’t adequately explain all of the origin of the universe, or life as I’ve posted on several times. If you want a specific example of this, just ask me and I’d be happy to post.
• Russells Teapot: This fails to have anything at all to do with Gods existence; its just an argument about the burden of proof. See my rebuttal here: http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Doe...t.#post1895831
• Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit: See rebuttal here: http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Doe...pt#post1895127
• Omnipotence: As stated previously, God cannot do everything; he is a perfect deity. He is all powerful; all powerful means he cannot make mistakes since only weak, stupid beings such as humans make mistakes. The very fact that God does not make mistakes is what makes him all powerful. Perfection is not the ability to do anything; rather, it is the characteristic that allows you not to make any mistakes. God is all powerful; not necessarily 100% omnipotent.
• Problem of Hell: This is actually one of the topics I haven’t rebutted in great detail on this thread. Please go to this link since it explains it much better then I could: http://crusadefortruth.com/links/PDF..._for_Faith.pdf Go to the sixth Objection: A Loving God Would Never Torture People In Hell.
• Free Will: Again, as with the majority of alleged arguments against God, this argument fails to disprove the existence of God; all it does is argue against a certain characteristic of god. See rebuttal here: http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Doe...ke#post1895123

The arguments after this become even more sketchy and even less convincing, so I didn’t quote them. If there is a certain argument you want me to explain, or answer just give me a link.

As for the what created God argument, please go to this link: http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Doe...=1#post1895831

Linking to previously unsuccessful attempts to convince people isn't going to convince them dood

[Rammjet]

-Multiple religions suggest there is one god, who has changed over time? A far more credible assertion to make on these grounds is that Gods are cultural avatars/projections, which is why they so often represent the Human id and try to exercise forms of authority- why they're so anthropomorphic. Let's make it clear that many cultures also believe in magic and ghosts, this doesn't mean they actually exist, and we'd be foolish to treat it as if it did.

-Some gods claim they aren't capable of evil, but also that they are responsible for the universe. The universe arguably contains evils- at least from a human perspective-, so a human like god who claims they are perfect and responsible for the world's creation cannot exist, which rules out several deities. Allah, Yahweh and Ywh are all disqualified.

-If a god claims to be a perfect designer, but the universe does not obviously reflect such a mentality, then gods who claim to be perfect designers can be disqualified.

-Occam's razor, you've failed to understand its job. Occam's razor demands that your explanations be only as complex as reason and evidence dictates. It does not say 'you must be able to explain everything or else,'. This is the reason why 'it's magic' isn't a fitting explanation for particle wave duality, just like 'it's god' isn't a fitting explanation for existance.

-Russel's Teapot, on the contrary this has everything to do with the question, because it demonstrates the burden of proof lies on the claiment, and that fantastical or ridiculous and anthropomorphic claims are not considered true by default. Ergo the existance of unfalsifiables like human-gods is by default considered wrong until there is a valid suggestion to the contrary.

-Omnipotence. You make a no true scotsman fallacy by claiming that all powerfulness is the 'lack of ability to make mistakes,'. That's not power. All powerfulness, by definition, dictates the ability to do anything, which includes making mistakes and doing the impossible, like bringing super man to life. You'll also find yourself running into a wall of semantics, because perfection isn't a 'lack of mistakes' either, that's one characteristic you personally deem perfect. If you don't believe in an all powerful god just say so, it will make discussion much easier and your arguments much more plausible.

-Hell, I agree that loving gods wouldn't torture people. Torturing people is a human attribute which we often project into scenarios such as cautionary tales [dark bed time stories] to scare children into behaving- religions which do the same are the same thing really.

-If a god with those characteristics doesn't exist, this rules out your god. Also notice many of the attributes of a god have been disproven, so what do you have left- is it still a god?


-Infinite regression, occam's razor is the solution, not magic.

Linking to previously unsuccessful attempts to convince people isn't going to convince them dood

^ This is very true, your previous attempts to convince people failed because they weren't good enough, so repeating them will only yield the same result.

[ClassyElephant_]

Yeah God exists. How do u think we got here?

[ClassyElephant_]

God exists. You're just blinded by science and shit. xP

I agree 100%

[PooZy]

Yeah God exists. How do u think we got here?

I agree 100%

new ted?

[Rammjet]

Yeah God exists. How do u think we got here?

This is probably a troll comment, but I'll humour it.

-There is already a sophisticated explanation for how we got here, which has been built over generations by the world's best and brightest.

-Even if there was no known explanation this doesn't, by default, mean there must have been a God. No explanation would mean 'I don't know', not 'it must be God'.

[AmyViolet]

>2012
>still have to ask this question

"Does god exist?"
Nope.
/thread

[Agravaine]

>2012
>still have to ask this question

"Does god exist?"
Nope.
/thread

I wish it was that simple.

[AmyViolet]

I wish it was that simple.

But wouldn't that be wonderful? Now, I'm all for intellectual thought and discovery: And it certainly is true that religion has done some truly great things for the human race. However, I believe we're now at a point where it is doing more harm than good, and it'd be wonderful if we could all move on.

Let me explain religion the way I think of it:

Religion and science do not cancel each other out. They are not enemies; they are not opposites. In fact, a combination of the two can be perfectly healthy. You see, religion is man's attempt to fill in the holes that science has not as of yet. Let's face it: The origin of life (to use a common example) is commonly regarded as an atheist / theist debate, but that's absolutely silly. We've proven that "God" did not create humans as they are present-day. We've proven that single-cell organisms over billions of years...you know the rest. What we /haven't/ proven, as far as I know, if where those first building blocks of life came from. Some say the Big Bang or one of countless other theories (which is a good thing; never believe something at face value. Question everything, as that leads to progress) was the start of life, but we as humans will always question what came before / started that, then what came before / started that etc. ad infinitum. There's only so far we can go back right now: And because of that hard limit, it's perfectly fine to assume that there is something otherworldly / spiritual behind out existence's initiation.

Remember what I said earlier? "Religion is man's attempt to fill in the holes that science has not as of yet." But then, inevitably, science does fill those holes. In a perfect world, religion would slip itself out of those holes and allow science to fill them, leafing to an informed, productive society. Sadly, this is not what has happened. Religion has stubbornly said "No" and stuck itself into the hole, meaning that science has less room to expand. Modern common religion squishes science and hinders progress because people are not willing to let their worldview adapt. They are unable to accept that something has changed, and what they thought was true is now proven incorrect. This is the point where religion becomes a problem; or, to add a humorous twist, "This kills the progress."

Religion is not bad. In fact, religion is good: It can provide amazing senses of unity, creativity, passion, and peace of mind. The problem is that, while science moves on, much of religion has not.

/end

[Rammjet]

> 'It is perfectly fine to end infinite regressions with spiritual or supernatural explanations.' No it isn't, because arguments from ignorance don't merit assumptions. It's perfectly fine to look at an infinite regression and say 'I don't know what comes next,', and it's perfectly fine to propose an idea. However it is not justifiable to propose dogmas, and a proposed idea- until it meets its burden of proof- must carry the 'I don't know' status.

If this was recognised then the problems you late go on to lament would be resolved, so in general I agree, but I think that extension could be a useful thought to add.

[Chai]

God exists. You're just blinded by science and shit. xP

A bit rude

You are extremely dumb.
It's basically the other way around.

even worse

Science is factual, religion is imaginary
dumbass

I see what you did here

Why are we even trying to debate with an 11 year old?

Whoah! slow down fella.

Can we all please respects others beliefs and opinions?
I know you are probably frustrated and a little angry but...
calling each other names like, Dumbass, ignorant fool, idiot, things like this are going way too far!

We all need to be considerate and respect others regardless of what they believe in.
By the way, nobody is going to listen to what you have to say if you call them names.

[pajamaparty]

They're bored.

Answer on all of life's questions.

I only have one answer: 42

[~Twisted]

new ted?

New Ted.

[Rammjet]

A bit rude

even worse

I see what you did here

Whoah! slow down fella.

Can we all please respects others beliefs and opinions?
I know you are probably frustrated and a little angry but...
calling each other names like, Dumbass, ignorant fool, idiot, things like this are going way too far!

We all need to be considerate and respect others regardless of what they believe in.
By the way, nobody is going to listen to what you have to say if you call them names.

I believe we should kill all the jews.

Respect my opinion!



On a serious note, yes name calling is silly.

[legend2579]

Bump

[legend2579]

I've had this thought for a while and I wanted to see what you think.
1) If god is the creator of the universe, why is he in human form and how does he understand our languages?
2) Prayers. I just think its probability. You have various outcomes and it's just chance. It's almost like spinning a dial numbered 1-6 and hoping it lands on a 4.

[Chai]

1) If god is the creator of the universe, why is he in human form and how does he understand our languages?

What? I never heard anything about him in human form. O.o

[Rammjet]

What? I never heard anything about him in human form. O.o

'created man in his image'

Not only does the abrahamic god state that they have a human image, but also that they have anthropomorphic qualities- 'his'.

Most religions worship gods which have aspirational human qualities or specified human forms, even hindu gods which are part animal are usually also part human.

[legend2579]

Google images.
Adding onto what I said, putting your hands together and talking to the imaginary man in the sky isn't going to make a difference in the outcome of something.

[Rammjet]

Google images.
Adding onto what I said, putting your hands together and talking to the imaginary man in the sky isn't going to make a difference in the outcome of something.

Some christians tried to prove it did, by monitoring the survival rate and duration of hospital patients, who either had or had not been prayed for.

The results were astounding: people who were prayed for had much shorter stays in hospital and much better survival rates.

Later it was discovered the patients were in hospital in 1996, and the prayers were said in 2010., [I think you see what they did there]

The response from the christians was 'Our god doesn't work in linear time,'.