Logic dictates that there is a God!

[jay_a2j]

Jay, I'm still puzzling over how your logical argument results in the Abrahamic God... Any clarification on what indicates the type of creator?

The thread was not made to prove the Abrahamic God just that God must exist. Now deciding which God exists is a matter of faith. The Bible puts forth overwhelming evidence that it is true.

You think some stories is overwhelming evidence? That a burning bush speaking is evidence? That someone turning towards God by being blinded randomly? Having 7 years of good crops then 7 years of famine?

Overwhelming evidence I see.

The hundreds of prophecies it holds that have all come to pass. (with 100% accuracy I might add)

[Skittles!]

Jay, I'm still puzzling over how your logical argument results in the Abrahamic God... Any clarification on what indicates the type of creator?

The thread was not made to prove the Abrahamic God just that God must exist. Now deciding which God exists is a matter of faith. The Bible puts forth overwhelming evidence that it is true.

You think some stories is overwhelming evidence? That a burning bush speaking is evidence? That someone turning towards God by being blinded randomly? Having 7 years of good crops then 7 years of famine?

Overwhelming evidence I see.

The hundreds of prophecies it holds that have all come to pass. (with 100% accuracy I might add)

Many 'prophecies' has come to pass over the years. Same as Notradamus (SP?). That's not real evidence.

Oh, and let's not forget, fish into thousands of fish, lasting 40 days in the desert with no food or water and walking on water.

[ParadiceCity9]

Jay, I'm still puzzling over how your logical argument results in the Abrahamic God... Any clarification on what indicates the type of creator?

The thread was not made to prove the Abrahamic God just that God must exist. Now deciding which God exists is a matter of faith. The Bible puts forth overwhelming evidence that it is true.

You think some stories is overwhelming evidence? That a burning bush speaking is evidence? That someone turning towards God by being blinded randomly? Having 7 years of good crops then 7 years of famine?

Overwhelming evidence I see.

The hundreds of prophecies it holds that have all come to pass. (with 100% accuracy I might add)

Many 'prophecies' has come to pass over the years. Same as Notradamus (SP?). That's not real evidence.

Oh, and let's not forget, fish into thousands of fish, lasting 40 days in the desert with no food or water and walking on water.

ah yes, some convincing evidence there nice find skittles.

[quagunsan]

To this point, I have read:

-page 1
-page 187

and have determined that this is the stupidest thread that I've ever seen.

[jay_a2j]

Jay, I'm still puzzling over how your logical argument results in the Abrahamic God... Any clarification on what indicates the type of creator?

The thread was not made to prove the Abrahamic God just that God must exist. Now deciding which God exists is a matter of faith. The Bible puts forth overwhelming evidence that it is true.

You think some stories is overwhelming evidence? That a burning bush speaking is evidence? That someone turning towards God by being blinded randomly? Having 7 years of good crops then 7 years of famine?

Overwhelming evidence I see.

The hundreds of prophecies it holds that have all come to pass. (with 100% accuracy I might add)

Many 'prophecies' has come to pass over the years. Same as Notradamus (SP?). That's not real evidence.

Oh, and let's not forget, fish into thousands of fish, lasting 40 days in the desert with no food or water and walking on water.

Nostradamus was not 100% accurate. That is the difference. "You will know a prophet of God because he will be accurate 100% all of the time" (paraphrased)

[ParadiceCity9]

jay tell me all the prophecies made in the bible.

[Skittles!]

Jay, I'm still puzzling over how your logical argument results in the Abrahamic God... Any clarification on what indicates the type of creator?

The thread was not made to prove the Abrahamic God just that God must exist. Now deciding which God exists is a matter of faith. The Bible puts forth overwhelming evidence that it is true.

You think some stories is overwhelming evidence? That a burning bush speaking is evidence? That someone turning towards God by being blinded randomly? Having 7 years of good crops then 7 years of famine?

Overwhelming evidence I see.

The hundreds of prophecies it holds that have all come to pass. (with 100% accuracy I might add)

Many 'prophecies' has come to pass over the years. Same as Notradamus (SP?). That's not real evidence.

Oh, and let's not forget, fish into thousands of fish, lasting 40 days in the desert with no food or water and walking on water.

Nostradamus was not 100% accurate. That is the difference. "You will know a prophet of God because he will be accurate 100% of the time" (paraphrased)

So.. By that reasoning, Muhammad would be a prophet of God?

I could be a prophet of God. "Humanity is fucked". See, I just told something that is happening right at this moment.

[jay_a2j]

jay tell me all the prophecies made in the bible.

Not a scholar. Jesus birth and death were predicted long before he ever came to earth... with 100% accuracy. (Here's a few)

[incognito_man]

Good post but many here might not have the capacity to think beyond a slinky concerning gravitational pull much less complex things as infinity.

You know why that is? BECAUSE NOONE CAN COMPREHEND INFINITY!

Anyone who claims so is lying.

Descartes was a good philosopher, but he made many mistakes in his "proof" for god.

I understand that we can't really 'comprehend' infinity. I certainly don't claim to be able to. In fact, the times that I've tried, as I lay in bed before I fall asleep and try to concentrate are damn hard as I can, I literally get dizzy. It's such a cool/weird feeling, I encourage everyone to try.

BUT, my point Descartes was driving at was that we have an idea of infinitude, not necessarily comprehending it, but just the instinct that it's there, something more than finiteness, proves the existence of some infinite creator. Now I'm not saying his proof is flawless, just that it is a strong argument for his point.

Personally, I believe in a higher power. But I think Christianity is the biggest myth (or rather, any religion) this world has ever seen. I wonder if the goofballs that created this jazz ever thought it'd last thousands of years? Crazy...

I still, however, cannot get over the feeling that there is something bigger than me out there. Trying to actually comprehend it is futile, like a fish trying to imagine anything outside of their pond. Perhaps with the help of something else (a fisherman who plucks the bugger out of the lake), the fish can begin to understand something outside its pond, but by itself, it will never understand anything else.

I believe Descartes later said that trying to comprehend god is a futile business. I think he was satisfied believing there is a god, and secondly that god is good (which he uses other arguments to determine).

[Snorri1234]

BUT, my point Descartes was driving at was that we have an idea of infinitude, not necessarily comprehending it, but just the instinct that it's there, something more than finiteness, proves the existence of some infinite creator. Now I'm not saying his proof is flawless, just that it is a strong argument for his point.

Well yeah I know about that, I merely wanted to make fun of jay.
But the problem with Descartes reasoning is that it's an argument from incredubility. He basically said: "I can think of no other way that we have the concept of infinity, so it must be godgiven."

I believe Descartes later said that trying to comprehend god is a futile business. I think he was satisfied believing there is a god, and secondly that god is good (which he uses other arguments to determine).

Descartes' proof of God is a very clear example of an ontological argument.
There have been many criticisms of this method, and it's generally considered to be silly by most people.
I mean, it assumes from the premise that god exists that god exists. Existing is more perfect than not existing, and since God is perfect he must exist....

[Guiscard]

Jay, I'm still puzzling over how your logical argument results in the Abrahamic God... Any clarification on what indicates the type of creator?

The thread was not made to prove the Abrahamic God just that God must exist. Now deciding which God exists is a matter of faith. The Bible puts forth overwhelming evidence that it is true.

But the Big Bang is equally as likely. Thats the whole point of the argument you've been conveniently ignoring for five pages.

Your logic also proves the big bang. So we're back to where we started. Nothing proven at all really.

[Guiscard]

Jay, I'm still puzzling over how your logical argument results in the Abrahamic God... Any clarification on what indicates the type of creator?

The thread was not made to prove the Abrahamic God just that God must exist. Now deciding which God exists is a matter of faith. The Bible puts forth overwhelming evidence that it is true.

You think some stories is overwhelming evidence? That a burning bush speaking is evidence? That someone turning towards God by being blinded randomly? Having 7 years of good crops then 7 years of famine?

Overwhelming evidence I see.

The hundreds of prophecies it holds that have all come to pass. (with 100% accuracy I might add)

Many 'prophecies' has come to pass over the years. Same as Notradamus (SP?). That's not real evidence.

Oh, and let's not forget, fish into thousands of fish, lasting 40 days in the desert with no food or water and walking on water.

Nostradamus was not 100% accurate. That is the difference. "You will know a prophet of God because he will be accurate 100% all of the time" (paraphrased)

Jay I'd like you to name me a single prophecy that has 100% truthfully come to pass AFTER the compilation of the Bible in its current form. We'll take the Synod of Hippo in 393AD as the date, shall we?

So, anything that was prophesied in the Bible BEFORE 393 but which came to pass AFTER 393.

Anything at all.

[ParadiceCity9]

jay tell me all the prophecies made in the bible.

Not a scholar. Jesus birth and death were predicted long before he ever came to earth... with 100% accuracy. (Here's a few)

where are a few.

[Guiscard]

Good post but many here might not have the capacity to think beyond a slinky concerning gravitational pull much less complex things as infinity.

You know why that is? BECAUSE NOONE CAN COMPREHEND INFINITY!

Anyone who claims so is lying.

Descartes was a good philosopher, but he made many mistakes in his "proof" for god.

I understand that we can't really 'comprehend' infinity. I certainly don't claim to be able to. In fact, the times that I've tried, as I lay in bed before I fall asleep and try to concentrate are damn hard as I can, I literally get dizzy. It's such a cool/weird feeling, I encourage everyone to try.

BUT, my point Descartes was driving at was that we have an idea of infinitude, not necessarily comprehending it, but just the instinct that it's there, something more than finiteness, proves the existence of some infinite creator. Now I'm not saying his proof is flawless, just that it is a strong argument for his point.

Personally, I believe in a higher power. But I think Christianity is the biggest myth (or rather, any religion) this world has ever seen. I wonder if the goofballs that created this jazz ever thought it'd last thousands of years? Crazy...

I still, however, cannot get over the feeling that there is something bigger than me out there. Trying to actually comprehend it is futile, like a fish trying to imagine anything outside of their pond. Perhaps with the help of something else (a fisherman who plucks the bugger out of the lake), the fish can begin to understand something outside its pond, but by itself, it will never understand anything else.

I believe Descartes later said that trying to comprehend god is a futile business. I think he was satisfied believing there is a god, and secondly that god is good (which he uses other arguments to determine).

Descartes is basically giving a version of the Ontological argument. I'm gonna take these summaries from Wiki because its easier and quicker than typing them out myself and getting the wording right...

1. I exist.
2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept through my own thoughts.
4. The concept must have come from God.
5. To be a perfect being God must exist.
6. God exists.

Thats Descartes' argument. Unfortunately there is an equally as logical and reasoned counter which goes like this:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

If you find that a little confusing, then let me give an analogy. To see Monet paint a wonderful painting might seem amazing. What a feat for him to have accomplished. However, it would be an EVEN GREATER feat for a five year old child. You would hold the child in even greater regard.

[ParadiceCity9]

Winner - GUISCARD!!

[unriggable]

Winner - GUISCARD!!

There is no winner with these delusionals.

[Guiscard]

Winner - GUISCARD!!

There is no winner with these delusionals.

[Snorri1234]

*points to the post above Guiscard's referencing the same wiki-page.

[incognito_man]

I understand the potential fallacies involved. As I said earlier, I'm new to the sight and I wasn't sure if Descartes had been discussed yet. I was just bringing up an argument he used, I'm not saying I agree with it. But he was a very influential person in our history and I was just directing attention to his ideas on this subject.

Nothing more, nothing less

[Napoleon Ier]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Your argument isn't valid:the Creation isnt necessarily the greatest acheivment imginable.
Your argument isn't sound:Once we accept the conclusion, the premises cave in around it.

[got tonkaed]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Your argument isn't valid:the Creation isnt necessarily the greatest acheivment imginable.
Your argument isn't sound:Once we accept the conclusion, the premises cave in around it.

theres something more great that creating something out of nothing?

i mean i think you kind of kill a lot of the need for a God concept if you dont really think creation is all that important.

[Snorri1234]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Your argument isn't valid:the Creation isnt necessarily the greatest acheivment imginable.
Your argument isn't sound:Once we accept the conclusion, the premises cave in around it.

theres something more great that creating something out of nothing?

i mean i think you kind of kill a lot of the need for a God concept if you dont really think creation is all that important.

It's nothing compared to trying to figure out the highest Prime Number.

[got tonkaed]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Your argument isn't valid:the Creation isnt necessarily the greatest acheivment imginable.
Your argument isn't sound:Once we accept the conclusion, the premises cave in around it.

theres something more great that creating something out of nothing?

i mean i think you kind of kill a lot of the need for a God concept if you dont really think creation is all that important.

It's nothing compared to trying to figure out the highest Prime Number.

or trying to find out where lost socks go i guess...

[Simonov]

proof that logic dictates there is no god:

God is an almighty creature.

Can God create stone so heavy even he couldn't lift it?
2 possibilities - he can or he can't in any case he isn't almighty.

conclusion 1: logic says there is no god.
conclusion 2: logic often says nothing.

[unriggable]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Your argument isn't valid:the Creation isnt necessarily the greatest acheivment imginable.
Your argument isn't sound:Once we accept the conclusion, the premises cave in around it.

theres something more great that creating something out of nothing?

i mean i think you kind of kill a lot of the need for a God concept if you dont really think creation is all that important.

It's nothing compared to trying to figure out the highest Prime Number.

or trying to find out where lost socks go i guess...

God needs fabric, what can I say?