Is there a god?

[Woodruff]

has someone proved that god doesn't exist?

Has someone proven that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

[Woodruff]

so when "weak atheists" say "i don't know whether god exists, but i don't think he does", their preference for the atheist side of the spectrum (as opposed to the theist side) requires evidence. you don't become an atheist for no reason. what is your reason? (the lack of a good reason by theism doesn't qualify as a reason for atheism)

Your using some serious illogic here. The reason for the lack of theism is the lack of evidence for it. Just as I don't believe in Santa Claus, I don't believe in a God. Do you believe in Santa Claus?

as far as we know, a creator/cause is necessary for anything in the universe.

as far as we know, santa isn't necessary for anything.

First of all, you don't KNOW that Santa Claus isn't necessary for anything. If you're going to presume that a creator or a cause is necessary, then you must assume that Santa Claus is necessary.

Secondly, you haven't explained why a "cause" for the universe is necessary.

remove god from the picture and suddenly our universe is an uncaused cause and exists for no apparent reason. there are questions that arise from the rejection of the god hypothesis that atheists can't answer.

Duh. That's what science is for.

the god question is scientific, we discussed this already

The God question is not remotely scientific. If you are going to treat God as a scientific question, then you must necessarily discount his own words on the subject (in which he is unknowable).

[Haggis_McMutton]

no. that's not at all what i said. i'm showing how both theists and atheists have a burden of proof. i'm NOT SAYING that the atheists' lack of proof implies that god exists. to prove that god exists, theists need proof as well.

So then, you don't have any belief on the matter?

Do you consider the statement:
"There is some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to happen" to have exactly a 50/50 shot of being true?

[everywhere116]

I keep hearing Kalam from john. I could be able to find something to end that. Player is just being ridiculous, as you both have pointed out.

[john9blue]

So then, you don't have any belief on the matter?

Do you consider the statement:
"There is some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to happen" to have exactly a 50/50 shot of being true?

i'd say around 50/50, yeah

I keep hearing Kalam from john. I could be able to find something to end that. Player is just being ridiculous, as you both have pointed out.

elaborate?

[Woodruff]

I keep hearing Kalam from john. I could be able to find something to end that. Player is just being ridiculous, as you both have pointed out.

elaborate?

I just assumed this is where you were getting the idea (not Wikipedia, but rather from having heard about it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

[Jippd]

Ask the dinosaurs

[natty dread]

Ask them what?

[PLAYER57832]

In this case, claiming one to be positive and the other negative is erroneous. The Creation of the universe lies well outside any such constructs you wish to put.

No. Either God exists (positively stated) or he does not exist (negatively stated). It is not at all outside of that construct.

Incorrect. Because whether God exists or not, you still have the origin of God to question. God, alone doesn't really answer it.

[PLAYER57832]

]Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

i am not asserting that god is necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist is forced to show how god is NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists have a burden of proof much like theists do.

That doesn't even make basic sense - it is impossible to prove the negative.

It might, in some future time, be possible to prove that God exists. Right now, it cannot be proven. That is one issue.

Also, this is not really a problem of logical ability to prove or disprove God, it is whether the fact that something so far outside of our ability to prove can still be trotted out as "scientifically more sound" than another thought that is also well outsid any ability of ours to prove.

Another problem is that atheists are not really just claiming "no God". They are claiming that it is possible for the Earth to have come about from purely random events. That is not a negative, it is a positive.

God or no God is belief. Claims to the contrary are just arrogance. Many here claim to adhere to logic, but ignore the basic fundamental. Most human logic involves a closed system. We know the external limits, and therefore can decide what is and is not possible within those limits. The origin of the universe lies not just outside those limits, but so far outside those limits that we cannot even truly conceive of what was, never mind potentials for how it all came to be.

To put it another way... before you can actually prove WHAT began the universe, you have to first prove that there even WAS a beginning. Humanity has not yet done that.

[PLAYER57832]

I keep hearing Kalam from john. I could be able to find something to end that. Player is just being ridiculous, as you both have pointed out.

Cute... you don't understand what I am saying, insist on incredibly simplistic answers to a question so complex we don't TRULY even understand all the possibilities and so I am "being ridiculous"? You all talk of the origins, but ignore the FACT that we don't even know that the universe actually has a beginnig and end. We don't know, in that particular context, if the Earth truly does, either. We just know that we percieve it as having such.

Typical arrogance! OK, then explain, fully, ALL the possibilities for how the universe began. Explain, clearly what existed before. When you can even begin to approach those questions, then you can claim I am "being ridiculous". Until then.. those who claim ANY real knowledge of any of these ideas, and attempts to classify it as other than belief, is being narrow minded, illogical, unscientific and arrogant.

Pretty worrisome in people claiming to be using scientific thinking and proof for their assertions.

Even if you narrow this down to the beginnings of Earth, there are many theories and really no preclusion of God in any of them, except that some arrogant atheists try to insist that physical proof IS proof of no God. That is just false and narrow thinking, not "logic" or science at all. It is a claim that their belief supercedes other beliefs.

[chang50]

I keep hearing Kalam from john. I could be able to find something to end that. Player is just being ridiculous, as you both have pointed out.

Cute... you don't understand what I am saying, insist on incredibly simplistic answers to a question so complex we don't TRULY even understand all the possibilities and so I am "being ridiculous"? You all talk of the origins, but ignore the FACT that we don't even know that the universe actually has a beginnig and end. We don't know, in that particular context, if the Earth truly does, either. We just know that we percieve it as having such.

Typical arrogance! OK, then explain, fully, ALL the possibilities for how the universe began. Explain, clearly what existed before. When you can even begin to approach those questions, then you can claim I am "being ridiculous". Until then.. those who claim ANY real knowledge of any of these ideas, and attempts to classify it as other than belief, is being narrow minded, illogical, unscientific and arrogant.

Pretty worrisome in people claiming to be using scientific thinking and proof for their assertions.

Even if you narrow this down to the beginnings of Earth, there are many theories and really no preclusion of God in any of them, except that some arrogant atheists try to insist that physical proof IS proof of no God. That is just false and narrow thinking, not "logic" or science at all. It is a claim that their belief supercedes other beliefs.

So if the ultimate answers are so far beyond our comprehension,as you seem to imply,why is a belief in god(s),less fatuous than an honest don't know? The agnostic or weak atheist just doesn't disbelieve in god(s),they generally disbelieve in all speculation about the ultimate origins.

[Woodruff]

In this case, claiming one to be positive and the other negative is erroneous. The Creation of the universe lies well outside any such constructs you wish to put.

No. Either God exists (positively stated) or he does not exist (negatively stated). It is not at all outside of that construct.

Incorrect. Because whether God exists or not, you still have the origin of God to question. God, alone doesn't really answer it.

If God does not exist, there is no "origin of God" to consider. And I'll say it again, either God exists or he does not exist. That is one positive and one negative, period.

[comic boy]

Of all the shit I have read in this forum over the years , nothing and I mean nothing compares with the waffle that Player spouts about the supposed existence of a God.The contention that is arrogant to dismiss God because '' We might be able to prove his existence in the future'' is as desperate a piece of straw clutching as one could ever imagine.
Heres the thing , should mankind , with a myriad of very real and observable problems , spend so much time and energy on a speculation , amongst millions of other such speculations, which may be proven in some unspecified future period of time.
I

[Nola_Lifer]

If we spend time quarreling with each other as to whether God is a person or a non-person, we waste our time.

-Thich Nhat Hanh-

In other words, get over yourselves and live life. If god exist then he exist, if he doesn't, he doesn't. It shouldn't stop you from being human.

[HapSmo19]

There is a god...and he's got a clathrate gun to all of our heads.

[pmchugh]

If we spend time quarreling with each other as to whether God is a person or a non-person, we waste our time.

-Thich Nhat Hanh-

In other words, get over yourselves and live life. If god exist then he exist, if he doesn't, he doesn't. It shouldn't stop you from being human.

People like to debate, if you think it is wasting your time.. then don't open the thread

I keep hearing Kalam from john. I could be able to find something to end that. Player is just being ridiculous, as you both have pointed out.

Cute... you don't understand what I am saying, insist on incredibly simplistic answers to a question so complex we don't TRULY even understand all the possibilities and so I am "being ridiculous"? You all talk of the origins, but ignore the FACT that we don't even know that the universe actually has a beginnig and end. We don't know, in that particular context, if the Earth truly does, either. We just know that we percieve it as having such.

Typical arrogance! OK, then explain, fully, ALL the possibilities for how the universe began. Explain, clearly what existed before. When you can even begin to approach those questions, then you can claim I am "being ridiculous". Until then.. those who claim ANY real knowledge of any of these ideas, and attempts to classify it as other than belief, is being narrow minded, illogical, unscientific and arrogant.

Pretty worrisome in people claiming to be using scientific thinking and proof for their assertions.

Even if you narrow this down to the beginnings of Earth, there are many theories and really no preclusion of God in any of them, except that some arrogant atheists try to insist that physical proof IS proof of no God. That is just false and narrow thinking, not "logic" or science at all. It is a claim that their belief supercedes other beliefs.

Why would God be a prominent possibility never mind a "belief"? You can disprove at least parts of all organised religions and they are so obvious man made it is ridiculous. So where do you start to bring God into it and why? What led you to believe this?

If the answer is anything other than organised religion, family, personal tragedy or community then I would be shocked.

[TheGeneral2112]

Actually I don't care wether there's a God or not, but something has always been intriguing me:
where does this notion of right and wrong, good and evil come from?

God.

[everywhere116]

Cute... you don't understand what I am saying, insist on incredibly simplistic answers to a question so complex we don't TRULY even understand all the possibilities and so I am "being ridiculous"? You all talk of the origins, but ignore the FACT that we don't even know that the universe actually has a beginnig and end. We don't know, in that particular context, if the Earth truly does, either. We just know that we percieve it as having such.

Beginning = Big Bang
End = Heat death
You're being ridiculous, both with this and the evasion of logic that I've seen you do throughout this thread. One example is denying that positive or negative claims can be applied to God. They certainly can. Either he exists or he doesn't exist, so it's either a positive or a negative. Tell me, can you half-exist?

Typical arrogance! OK, then explain, fully, ALL the possibilities for how the universe began. Explain, clearly what existed before. When you can even begin to approach those questions, then you can claim I am "being ridiculous". Until then.. those who claim ANY real knowledge of any of these ideas, and attempts to classify it as other than belief, is being narrow minded, illogical, unscientific and arrogant.

The universe began with the Big Bang. As for why it happened, I don't know and I'm not going to begin to try to explain why. We may know in the future. But as for now, saying "I don't know" is much better than inventing a God of the Gaps and attributing everything we don't know to his doing.

Pretty worrisome in people claiming to be using scientific thinking and proof for their assertions.

This coming from the guy asserting that there must be a god with no proof at all.

Even if you narrow this down to the beginnings of Earth, there are many theories and really no preclusion of God in any of them, except that some arrogant atheists try to insist that physical proof IS proof of no God. That is just false and narrow thinking, not "logic" or science at all. It is a claim that their belief supercedes other beliefs.

If someone here has said that physical proof of a phenomenon precludes the possibility of a God exist, they are technically wrong. Technically. But for people who know about the basic inquisitive nature of humans and a basic understanding of the purpose of gods throughout human history, it is blindingly obvious that every god was invented to explain things that early humans could not have possibly understood. Once we fully understand a phenomenon without having to resort to a god to explain it, it makes the chances of said god existing practically zero. It is no different now, except the questions we try to answer now are things like "Why does the universe exist" instead of "Where does lightning come from?"

[Phatscotty]

Is there a god?

Yes.

End of thread

[Aradhus]

Is there a god?

Yes.

There is? What does god want from me?

Also, can you tell him/her/it that I want nothing to do with her/him/it? Thanks.

[natty dread]

How many gods are there?

[Phatscotty]

How many gods are there?

If you have to ask, you can't afford it

[natty dread]

How many gods are there?

If you have to ask, you can't afford it

ARE YOU DODGING THE QUESTION?!?

THE CUBE GOD IS NOT PLEASED

[PLAYER57832]

I keep hearing Kalam from john. I could be able to find something to end that. Player is just being ridiculous, as you both have pointed out.

Cute... you don't understand what I am saying, insist on incredibly simplistic answers to a question so complex we don't TRULY even understand all the possibilities and so I am "being ridiculous"? You all talk of the origins, but ignore the FACT that we don't even know that the universe actually has a beginnig and end. We don't know, in that particular context, if the Earth truly does, either. We just know that we percieve it as having such.

Typical arrogance! OK, then explain, fully, ALL the possibilities for how the universe began. Explain, clearly what existed before. When you can even begin to approach those questions, then you can claim I am "being ridiculous". Until then.. those who claim ANY real knowledge of any of these ideas, and attempts to classify it as other than belief, is being narrow minded, illogical, unscientific and arrogant.

Pretty worrisome in people claiming to be using scientific thinking and proof for their assertions.

Even if you narrow this down to the beginnings of Earth, there are many theories and really no preclusion of God in any of them, except that some arrogant atheists try to insist that physical proof IS proof of no God. That is just false and narrow thinking, not "logic" or science at all. It is a claim that their belief supercedes other beliefs.

Why would God be a prominent possibility never mind a "belief"? You can disprove at least parts of all organised religions and they are so obvious man made it is ridiculous. So where do you start to bring God into it and why? What led you to believe this?

No, you cannot disprove parts of all organized religion. You can disprove some parts of many religions and basically all of some religions.

BUT, disproving organized religion and disproving God are very, very different things. One is an institution created by human beings. The other is a being that may or may not exist. Many religions do believe in God, but that does not make them the same thing.

If the answer is anything other than organised religion, family, personal tragedy or community then I would be shocked.

As a Scientist, I have been taught objectivity is the highest form of reason. That doesn't mean lacking opinion, but it means understanding the difference between opinion, belief and fact. Claiming that you can "prove any religion wrong" shows that you lack that discernment. You don't even KNOW all religions (impossible to do so, really), never mind know you can disprove them. Y ou certainly cannot prove there is no God.

What you do is set up a strawman of what someone convinced you God was about or you seem to believe God is about..and then you find ways that idea is incorrect. But, like any strawman, it has nothing to do with the beliefs of real people. It is you convincing yourself and attempting to claim it is some kind of knowledge and logic of other ideas.

And, many people have attempted to disprove my religion.. ALL have failed miserably.