Best argument for god? ... From an atheist

a reply to: Xtrozero

What chemicals am I talking with here?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Shouldn't we first agree on what a 'god' is because 'creator being outside of spacetime' is a bad definition. What kind of being? How do they create? Where is outside spacetime and how is that possible? If you can't answer these questions in detail then what are you even talking about because all you have provided is some amorphous creature with mysteriously convenient abilities.

You assume that we have the capability of a complete definition or that a complete definition is necessary for us to know that something must exist.

When we use words like infinite, all powerful, timeless and so forth, those words do have meaning, despite them all being beyond our direct experience. They describe concepts that most people really have no difficulty with.

There are many things beyond our capability to fully describe, but that doesn't mean that we doubt that a gravitational singularity could exist, or that the universe could be open and expand forever. We can conceive of these things and even explain how such concepts come about.

With all due respect, I call BS. Without proper definition there cannot be proper research and verification. What you describe is hypothesis, conjecture that depends on assumed properties and behaviors that we can never actually explore firsthand. The words you use can't be weighed for actual measurable parameters, only investigated in the most epistemological sense because of how intangible the whole concept is. And intangible concepts are really f@$#ing hard to "trust but verify" you know what I mean? We need to test these ideas and witness the results of such factors in action to take any of it seriously.

That's like suggesting we can't do calculus because the limits approach infinity.

The closer you get to infinity, the more fuzzy the results of your math wizardry. If you could approach infinity without losing track of even a single number, then you have a computer capable of simulating the universe and proving beyond a reasonable doubt exactly how life happened. Maybe you can use that computer to email the cosmos and find out why God is so quiet lately.

In Calculus, the numbers become more definite as you approach the limit of infinity.

It can be thought of as getting the slope of a tangent point on a curve by starting with two separate points on that curve and bringing them closer and closer towards the actual tangent point. Where the points which may have been separate actually overlap (and are essentially the same point) the limit of the denominator goes towards infinity (I'm awfully sorry but putting it in words is imprecise and I don't feel I have really captured the truth in an obvious way).

Best to refer you to: L'Hôpital's rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's easier to explain calculus than it is to prove god, apparently.

Yes, in a way.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

They were designed. Without a doubt.

So we are talking intelligent design vs random chemical actions... OK... I don't debate faith as it is a losing argument, so I'll fall back to my original point...why do you need a God to have what we have in the universe today? It reminds me of this as an argument for intelligent design... If life was intelligent design then God did a real crappy job, if life is random then it makes sense that much of it sucks, but is good enough.

I'm not pushing the argument towards intelligent design because we don't have any certainty there.

But in the case of automobiles, we do.

I don't think we will get a resolution by probing at the points where we already disagree. It will be more productive if we don't use the fuzzy and the questionable, but instead we stay within certainty.

And defining the sequence of development as evolutionary is a fuzzy misuse of language. There is a better word to describe the process and because we do know it is a design process, suggesting that it is evolutionary is unhelpful. There is significant fashion and very little practical mechanical change in car design, even in comparison with new technologies.

If you wouldn't mind speaking plainly and to the point?

Neither evolution nor intelligent design prove, or disprove, the existence of a mono-theistic creator God.

In the case of evolution, it is possible that God may have used it as a process - or not. So, it is beside the point to a proof of the existence of God.

Similarly, apparent intelligent design has also been argued as being the result of randomness, a large number space for improbabilities to occur and some ordering constraints of natural processes. So it also does not prove, or disprove, the existence of God.

Both arguments are used to explain the observed biological diversity, but neither even prove themselves with absolute certainty. They have become the baggage of two alternate and irreconcilable belief systems.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

And defining the sequence of development as evolutionary is a fuzzy misuse of language. There is a better word to describe the process and because we do know it is a design process, suggesting that it is evolutionary is unhelpful. There is significant fashion and very little practical mechanical change in car design, even in comparison with new technologies.

There are very true and set process, rules, laws etc that will be followed, but there is also a large amount of randomness in the direction that the end product goes, or how a product changes over a period of time. Darwin Theory is like 1% of what we know today, so yes it was a great first page to understand all that goes into this process we call life.

Evolution underlining base is as simple as saying who gets to propagate and who doesn't....

But this thread is about proofs of the existence of God which an atheist may consider.

I don't think evolutionary process itself speaks to that, for the reason that an intelligent God is highly likely to have used evolutionary processes in the way he designed a dynamically progressing ecology.

Evolution is a change that can only exist within a "finite time and Space". So why do we spend time arguing finite time and Space...?

God is not finite….. God is infinite….

How did the Infinite form finite……? I know that you will have some problems arguing this because the infintie is a absolut constant….. And a absolute constant never changes….. We know that within Our science.

It is the same as asking: How can nothingnes create something (finite)…..? To Our knowledge of finite, that is scientifically impossible. We need a observable finite to explain…. That is why we will never get to the bottom of this.

Scientifically we love the idea that: Out of nowhere a particle suddenly appeard. Like Out of nowhere is not a time and Space....Nowhere is not really important, but the particle is. That is how Our Focus is formed.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
For every creation there's a creator.

Still not debunked.

The teleological (design) argument used to hold a lot of water for me e.g. the complexity of the circulatory system etc.

Then I got MS and figured anyone willing to design such a ridiculous laundry list of horrific defects into his creation, is either a really terrible engineer or just a horrible person.

Confirmation bias is fun, but I can't possibly bring myself to respect an omnipotent and omniscient being who happily let my dad's final years go the way they did.

Or the plight of the Yazidi girls etc etc etc.

The list is endless. If the Christian god does turn out to be real, I think I'd be asking him what the hell his problem is.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Sorry for your loss. Death and illness reign, and so does wickedness.

a reply to: fencesitter85

The list is endless. If the Christian god does turn out to be real, I think I'd be asking him what the hell his problem is.

Why do you blame God when bad things happen? When we are the ones
who are to blame for every curse that befalls us? God has stepped back
at our request. The world is what it is because we rejected his guidance
despite his warnings. We all experience the consequences of sin not just
you. Believe me he understands you. It's you that has no clue about him.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Really? You really think we are some form of perfection? Why don't we have the much more capable eyes of a octopus that can focus a image by moving the lense (like a camera or telescope), not by changing the lense's curvature which has serious draw backs, but works.

You think we would be better with octopus eyes? Our eyes allow us to see exactly what we need to see

Regardless of the perceived imperfections, which I would disagree with classifying them as imperfections, how could you suppose that these biological optic systems could have developed by random chance? A Nikon camera could never come to be by random chance, and biological eyes are much more complex and longer lasting than a Nikon camera. Not to mention they are seamlessly synced to our chief operating system.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Posted this statement on another thread but this is about the only thing I've ever read about religious cultist faith (not fact) which might have some sort of basis in objective reality:

'The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still"

Carl Sagan 

Cheers.

He created everything, yes?

Including cancer? And MS? And MND? And all manner of absolutely horrific things which befall us without warning?

And then we get blamed for acting in a manner which he created?

He could have created human life without the ability for our own immune systems to attack us horribly.

That's just one single example of the hundreds I could happily reel off which confirm he is either inept, or cruel.

Based on his love of genocide and vengeance, I see absolutely no reason to give him any of my respect whatsoever. He chose to create us with the ability to do harm to each other. He chose to create that.

He could have easily given us free will WITHOUT that free will involving things like rape or child abuse. He chose to create those.

This is all hypothetical of course. Given the thousands of gods in human history, why are you so sure that your god is the only one of the thousands? Because men wrote in books that he told them so?

I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in a god, but if I did then it wouldn't be the god of classical Christian theism. It would be a less angry, vengeful, narcissistic god.

I apologise for the blunt response here but I am tired of being told it's my fault that my immune system attacks the nerve pathways in my brain and spine.

I respect your views - I just disagree with them entirely.

I would however still happily invite you into my home for a cup of tea and a chat - and I hope you have a great day.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: fencesitter85

The list is endless. If the Christian god does turn out to be real, I think I'd be asking him what the hell his problem is.

Why do you blame God when bad things happen? When we are the ones
who are to blame for every curse that befalls us? God has stepped back
at our request. The world is what it is because we rejected his guidance
despite his warnings. We all experience the consequences of sin not just
you. Believe me he understands you. It's you that has no clue about him.

originally posted by: chr0naut

I don't think evolutionary process itself speaks to that, for the reason that an intelligent God is highly likely to have used evolutionary processes in the way he designed a dynamically progressing ecology.

The problem is it all comes down to faith... there is no such thing as proof in any of this... You either believe or not believe. In the case with atheists I'm not sure there is an argument to support since they do not have faith and need facts as a minimum.

the perfect mathematics we find in nature on Earth and throughout the whole known universe, suggests that everything is made by design, by an intelligent creator

Well this went just as well as I expected.

Thanks to the people who had the strength in their own convictions to actually play along.

And that's the real point of this thread.
Just to show how insecure both sides are.

originally posted by: KindraLaBelle
the perfect mathematics we find in nature on Earth and throughout the whole known universe, suggests that everything is made by design, by an intelligent creator

Mathematics is a weak and inaccurate construct humans came up with as a way of trying to define perceived equivalencies. There is no real math in nature since there are no equivalencies, everything is singular and unique.

The proof of GOD is simple.

Atheists are simply people who have been disillusioned by religion. But they are every bit as mislead and brainwashed by their cult of belief.

Here's the proof of GOD, mkay:

-You exist.

-Existence has ALWAYS EXISTED. (You can't get something from nothing, genius) Current scientific models all confirm this obvious fact.

-Always= Infinite.

-Therefore, just as existence has permeated all things, the infinite permeates all things. (Infinite creativity, infinite intelligence, infinite energy)


This fractal existence, this spiral, this is God, the "I AM THAT I AM." = "I EXIST"

a reply to: DustDoses So because something has always existed it must be god? I'm not following this logic.

a reply to: fencesitter85


That is a poor mans argument....nothing else.

a reply to: fencesitter85

That's just one single example of the hundreds I could happily reel off which confirm he is either inept, or cruel.

No sweetheart God is not cruel or inept and yes he created everything.
And I bet you I could happily shoot down ever example you use to Judge
God so harshly. For one thing I already told you we were warned?

He could have created human life without the ability for our own immune systems to attack us horribly.

He did create us that way. And with his guidance we wouldn't have suffered
none of those things. I'm sorry but if you choose the atheist lies because you
simply don't want to know God. Be honest and just say that. Don't make
excuses for yourself with half baked ridiculous judgments that enable you
to fool yourself with secular lies.

If atheists would just admit that to themselves ( that the don't want
God in their lives) ? It would save an awful lot of wind around here.

Forget the excuses because there are none. If you don't want to
know him own it. So I can shut the hell up.

a reply to: DustDoses

-Existence has ALWAYS EXISTED. (You can't get something from nothing, genius) Current scientific models all confirm this obvious fact.

- Science does not state that Our finite time and Space have always existed. Our existing universe have a timeline of 13.799 billion years +- 0.021 billion years.

- You got to be genius to know what Space and time that existed 14 billion years ago. How do you argue that time as a athiest…?