Does god exist?

[Rammjet]

All I got from this is that gay people are gay and some people are against gay people because of the bible blah blah blah

Homophobes are more likely to be repressing their own homosexual tendencies.

[legend2579]

I liek where this thread is going.

[Slundr Men]

God exists?

Okay, well let's say that I believe in this god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who is the only god, because all the countless other deities in religions across the entire globe are stupid, even though they provide the same or similar claims about their existence). You can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster DOESN'T exist, so that means it must exist.

And that's the logic of many of the theists in this thread (replace 'God', or the god you believe in, with all instances of 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'). Stupid logic (however, not stupid people. It's just the logic that's flawed). And yes, people HAVE been able to prove, to some extent, that God does not exist (hi there, Rammjet ) over and over again, so that makes the above argument even more illogical.

That's all I have to say for now.

[Mr.Black.]

Arguing with atheists is almost impossible; if you prove them wrong, they grab another theory. CK

( No offence. )

[Silverrida]

Arguing with atheists is almost impossible; if you prove them wrong, they grab another theory. CK

( No offence. )

You just described every theist. Look through this thread and find one instance where a theory of an atheist was legitimately proven wrong.

EDIT: Correction, they just switch topics more often. And some atheists seem to have done the same thing. But it seems to be more prominent amongst theists after a quick glance.

[Lightnin!!!]

Arguing with atheists is almost impossible; if you prove them wrong, they grab another theory. CK

( No offence. )

"You can't prove there isn't a giant space monkey who controls the whole universe, so I'm right", isn't the same as winning an argument.

If I came up to you and said, "If you look at this wall long enough it'll start quoting Shastealer2", you'd have no proof.
And that's what the theist arguments all boil down to, "You can't say there isn't a god".

Whereas all the atheistic arguments all provide theories as to why God is disproved, and those theories have never been disproved.
Hence, atheists win.

[Blackie6789]

@Rammjet:
The Cambrian Explosion in essence destroys the basis of evolution--Darwin predicted small, gradual changes [I actually quoted from him] however, the Cambrian Explosion does just the opposite. (And evolutionists have absolutely no explanation for this massive contradiction.)
I argue against evolution because you use it as a platform to reject God--you don't need a God if evolution can do the same thing in a 'scientific way'.

If you really want to argue about God [the core subject I would assume you're referring to], then I suggest you start by rebutting some of the posts on God I've given which haven't been replied to. For instance, my post on fine tuning: http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Doe...=1#post1895127

I don't argue against evolution just because I'm a theist [although that is one reason], I reject evolution because of it's many problems, inconsistencies, and flaws. At this point, evolution is so full of gaping holes and logical fallacies that it can hardly be considered a theory if even that.

You could argue that there are millions of scientists that believe in evolution, but to be honest, a majority has no place in science--majorities are for politics. You don't need 51% of scientists to prove that the earth is round; you only need a single observation to prove that. Theories are proved by testing and experiments; not by a general consensus. Some of THE most foremost scientific discoveries in all of history were made by people who went outside of the majority--the first flight, Heliocentric universe, even the lunar landings to a certain extent.

@Lightnin:
I would ask you to think outside of the stereo typical theist view. Scientific minded theists don't merely claim that since you can't disprove God's existence the atheist is disproved--they actually will provide evidence that God does exist. (Such as the Fine Tuning of The Universe, or Kalam Cosmological Argument.)

Opposed to the stereotypical theist reply: "Prove God doesn't exist. You can't, therefore atheism is disproved."

Personally, arguing from ignorance of God's existence to me seems weak at best, so I don't use this argument--and to be honest, I don't think any theist should use it at all besides mentioning that the idea of a God is unfalsifiable. [It can't be proved of disproved]

[Dealth]

God exists?

Okay, well let's say that I believe in this god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who is the only god, because all the countless other deities in religions across the entire globe are stupid, even though they provide the same or similar claims about their existence). You can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster DOESN'T exist, so that means it must exist.

And that's the logic of many of the theists in this thread (replace 'God', or the god you believe in, with all instances of 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'). Stupid logic (however, not stupid people. It's just the logic that's flawed). And yes, people HAVE been able to prove, to some extent, that God does not exist (hi there, Rammjet ) over and over again, so that makes the above argument even more illogical.

That's all I have to say for now.

Your logic is even more flawed. For 1, I've never seen that logic try to prove existence, but rather try to disprove non-existence (if that makes sense). Also, you can't just take a reason and say "it's stupid", then leave it at that. Don't go on this thread just to say "Most theists say _____ and it is stupid. I agree with Rammjet. "

[Lightnin!!!]

@Lightnin:
I would ask you to think outside of the stereo typical theist view. Scientific minded theists don't merely claim that since you can't disprove God's existence the atheist is disproved--they actually will provide evidence that God does exist. (Such as the Fine Tuning of The Universe, or Kalam Cosmological Argument.)

Opposed to the stereotypical theist reply: "Prove God doesn't exist. You can't, therefore atheism is disproved."

Personally, arguing from ignorance of God's existence to me seems weak at best, so I don't use this argument--and to be honest, I don't think any theist should use it at all besides mentioning that the idea of a God is unfalsifiable. [It can't be proved of disproved]

Umm.. I think you've misread me, I'm not a theist, I'm atheist, ie. not religious.

I know YOU personally don't do that, you try and back-up your statements, however poor the back-up is, still, a large percentage of people resort to, "You can't prove it so **** you".
It's like saying, "has anyone ever been so far as decided to use even go want to do look more like", there is no response to it.

I googled, "Fine Tuning of the Universe" and immediately facepalmed just through reading the little snippet of text it gives you under the link.
It talked about how the earth was created by God because "chance events" don't happen.

B.S.

The universe is potentially infinite, nothing is impossible, everything and anything can happen at anytime anywhere.
Therefore, there is such a thing as chance, yes, our planet could enter "the Goldilocks zone" without the help of some giant supreme being pushing it there, yes, our planet could contain the essentials for life without a god "breathing" it onto it, yes, our planet could blossom into a unique planet capable of so much without a colossal space-dwelling puppet-master pulling the strings.
Your websites don't say anything but a load of nonsense to me, I'd rather believe astronomers than people who think the world blew in on the winds of a fart created by a huge white haired wonder.

[Blackie6789]

The universe is potentially infinite, nothing is impossible, everything and anything can happen at anytime anywhere.
Therefore, there is such a thing as chance, yes, our planet could enter "the Goldilocks zone" without the help of some giant supreme being pushing it there, yes, our planet could contain the essentials for life without a god "breathing" it onto it, yes, our planet could blossom into a unique planet capable of so much without a colossal space-dwelling puppet-master pulling the strings.
Your websites don't say anything but a load of nonsense to me, I'd rather believe astronomers than people who think the world blew in on the winds of a fart created by a huge white haired wonder.

The fine tuning basically says that there are parameters set in an extremely narrow range that permit life. For instance, if the expansion rate of the universe was changed in one part to a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, life wouldn't be possible. Or quoting from an article:
If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)

I don't believe in the BB, but just in case you do, there was a large number of 'coincidences' that would have had to occur for you to exist.

Fine tuning isn't just saying that the earth has water--it goes a lot more scientific then that. Again, if you really want to [which I highly doubt], you can read my post that I posted the link to on my last post. IT goes a lot more in depth then just quoting an article.

[Lightnin!!!]

The fine tuning basically says that there are parameters set in an extremely narrow range that permit life. For instance, if the expansion rate of the universe was changed in one part to a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, life wouldn't be possible. Or quoting from an article:
If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)

I don't believe in the BB, but just in case you do, there was a large number of 'coincidences' that would have had to occur.

Fine tuning isn't just saying that the earth has water--it goes a lot more scientific then that. Again, if you really want to [which I highly doubt], you can read my post that I posted the link to on my last post. IT goes a lot more in depth then just quoting an article.

I'll pass.

But in short you're saying, "I don't believe in coincidences".
Well tough, coincidences happen, you're not the head of MI6.
And coincidences don't have to be big, they can be small too.
To quote an anime I watched as a child, "I dreamt that I'd have french toast this morning and do you know what I did!".
Coincidence. Yes.
God made it so that his grandmother would make him French Toast! No.

The universe is amazing, there is no doubt in my mind that it could beat odds.

[Bloo]

Reading this makes my brain hurt

[Chip]

Reading this makes my brain hurt

Well don't read it.

[Bloo]

Well don't read it.

I'm just joking around 'bout that.

I don't wanna say what I think since Rammjet is just going to correct me somehow :c

[Chip]

I'm just joking around 'bout that.

I don't wanna say what I think since Rammjet is just going to correct me somehow :c

Hell say what you like.

[Silverrida]

I'm just joking around 'bout that.

I don't wanna say what I think since Rammjet is just going to correct me somehow :c

If you think that your viewpoint can be countered logically, alter your opinion.

[Rammjet]

@Rammjet:
The Cambrian Explosion in essence destroys the basis of evolution--Darwin predicted small, gradual changes [I actually quoted from him] however, the Cambrian Explosion does just the opposite. (And evolutionists have absolutely no explanation for this massive contradiction.)
I argue against evolution because you use it as a platform to reject God--you don't need a God if evolution can do the same thing in a 'scientific way'.

If you really want to argue about God [the core subject I would assume you're referring to], then I suggest you start by rebutting some of the posts on God I've given which haven't been replied to. For instance, my post on fine tuning: http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Doe...=1#post1895127

I don't argue against evolution just because I'm a theist [although that is one reason], I reject evolution because of it's many problems, inconsistencies, and flaws. At this point, evolution is so full of gaping holes and logical fallacies that it can hardly be considered a theory if even that.

You could argue that there are millions of scientists that believe in evolution, but to be honest, a majority has no place in science--majorities are for politics. You don't need 51% of scientists to prove that the earth is round; you only need a single observation to prove that. Theories are proved by testing and experiments; not by a general consensus. Some of THE most foremost scientific discoveries in all of history were made by people who went outside of the majority--the first flight, Heliocentric universe, even the lunar landings to a certain extent.

@Lightnin:
I would ask you to think outside of the stereo typical theist view. Scientific minded theists don't merely claim that since you can't disprove God's existence the atheist is disproved--they actually will provide evidence that God does exist. (Such as the Fine Tuning of The Universe, or Kalam Cosmological Argument.)

Opposed to the stereotypical theist reply: "Prove God doesn't exist. You can't, therefore atheism is disproved."

Personally, arguing from ignorance of God's existence to me seems weak at best, so I don't use this argument--and to be honest, I don't think any theist should use it at all besides mentioning that the idea of a God is unfalsifiable. [It can't be proved of disproved]

-Is the modern theory of evolution exactly the same as Darwin's original theory? No of course not, in two centuries it has vastly expanded and changed to include genetic, epigenetics etcetera. Pointing out dissonance between quote-mines from Darwin and modern thinking is hence a straw argument.

-Do evolutionists have absolutely no explanation for the 'contradiction'? Well firstly their current accepted theory is that evolution's rate is variable depending on circumstances, so there's no contradiction. Furthermore there are numerous hypotheses as to why the cambrian was such an amazing time, some of them more favourable than others. There's no need to rush to a conclusion, they're soundly reviewing arguments and evidence as they have done for the past two centuries and we can expect just as much innovation in the following centuries.

The Fine tuning argument or 'watch maker' argument is in essense special pleading for the following reasons.
-The universe is vastly, vastly, empty space that is in no way conducive to life, it clearly has no design to meet our ends.
-Theoretical physicists have published models of universes which exist with no weak force that still predict carbon based chemistry, showing there are superfluous aspects of our universe.
-Humans in general anthropomorphise their surroundings, this is why in Japan a mountain is traditionally seen as a house for a divine being to live in, eventhough it is just a pile of rocks whose geological history we understand serves no purpose at all. Humans have an innate affinity for humanising other things, so we look on the world with a confirmation bias that is really rather infantile, not profound.
-Infinite regression, if all things of complexity must be created, who creates a creator? We could insist 'the creator is outside time and logic', but this is called a special pleading fallacy.

You clearly argue against evolution because of your religious views, which you've invested personal emotions in. Every single independant institute on earth and even many religious institutes recognise evolution not just as theory but sound fact in explaining biodiversity. The idea that you consider yourself such an expert to denounce the corner-stone of biology while simultaneously showing you're anything but an expert by failing to even understand what evolution is, can only be a delusion. It is like insisting the sun goes round the earth.

How Ironic that you fling shit at well-established and disciplined science whilst proposing we instead accept an idea which you admit is unfalsifiable.

Unfalsifiable ideas have no place in science, this is one of science's rules. Your ideas must be falsifiable or else they are not testable.

[and let's please stop pretending you reject evolution for reasons other than religious, it just so happens you reject EVERY science which contradicts your religion whilst having no problem with the rest of science.
Evolution, the Geological theory of the crust's recycling, the Big bang theory, the acretion hypothesis, abiogenesis, the drake equation and radiometric dating are all 'naughty' sciences which obviously contradict your religion. You don't believe in any of them, it isn't just a coinicidence that you only reject sciences that disagree with your faith.]

[Rammjet]

The fine tuning basically says that there are parameters set in an extremely narrow range that permit life. For instance, if the expansion rate of the universe was changed in one part to a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, life wouldn't be possible. Or quoting from an article:
If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)

I don't believe in the BB, but just in case you do, there was a large number of 'coincidences' that would have had to occur for you to exist.

Fine tuning isn't just saying that the earth has water--it goes a lot more scientific then that. Again, if you really want to [which I highly doubt], you can read my post that I posted the link to on my last post. IT goes a lot more in depth then just quoting an article.

If you do not believe in the derivation of the very data you're using to claim the universe is fine tuned what leg have you to stand on?

It's like turning to a court and saying 'this dna proves Jim was at the scene of the murder and therefore the culprit!', and adding 'Oh and by the way, I believe the scene was contaminated before the dna was sampled,'.

Just as it happens you are exercising a confirmation bias anyway. Look at the evidence which shows the universe is not designed, namely it's massive entropic voids that are inhospitable and utterly alien.

[PooZy]

The Cambrian Explosion in essence destroys the basis of evolution--Darwin predicted small, gradual changes [I actually quoted from him] however, the Cambrian Explosion does just the opposite. (And evolutionists have absolutely no explanation for this massive contradiction.)

I've actually remembered you saying this exact thing before and Rammjet linking you to a site which explains scientific reasons for the cambrian explosion, and then you agreeing with him and moving on to something else.

[Rammjet]

I've actually remembered you saying this exact thing before and Rammjet linking you to a site which explains scientific reasons for the cambrian explosion, and then you agreeing with him and moving on to something else.

Various other users have already been over and over fine-tuning arguments. We even got audio-comments from Hawking to explain the fallacy.

Yet it's recently been brought up as 'an argument we never replied to,'.