Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[quatona]

So you're not interested in having a serious discussion.

Very well, any other takers? Why is the idea of an inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe more reasonable than a Creator God?

At a point where you talk about creating universes from nothing, reason isn´t an applicable tool anymore. One wild guess is as good as any other.

 

[KCfromNC]

To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things

False. Substitute "square circle" for god(s) and you'll see why.

Also, this argument applies equally to knowing that there's just one god. After all, unless you've been everywhere in the universe at once you can't know for sure that there aren't multiple gods. Guess Christianity goes out the window, at least if you apply this standard consistently.

Why do people feel the need to change the standards of evidence just to fit a god in? Special pleading just makes their claims look weaker than they already are.

 

[KCfromNC]

So you're not interested in having a serious discussion.

Very well, any other takers? Why is the idea of an inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe more reasonable than a Creator God?

At least we have evidence that inanimate and unintelligent things exist. Can't say the same for god(s). That makes the latter less reasonable.

 

[nonbeliever314]

False. Substitute "square circle" for god(s) and you'll see why.

Also, this argument applies equally to knowing that there's just one god. After all, unless you've been everywhere in the universe at once you can't know for sure that there aren't multiple gods. Guess Christianity goes out the window, at least if you apply this standard consistently.

Why do people feel the need to change the standards of evidence just to fit a god in? Special pleading just makes their claims look weaker than they already are.

Agreed. Like the "square circle". (Emoji thumbs up)

 

[Joshua260]

pshun2404 said: ↑
To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things

False. Substitute "square circle" for god(s) and you'll see why.

Incorrect. You are confusing coherency with believability.
We know that a square circle is impossible because it is an incoherent concept. Not so with God. The concept of the Christian god is totally coherent. You may not believe he exists, but that does not mean he's incoherent.

 

[Achilles6129]

Because people created God to explain nature when they didn't understand it, and then later to give them hope when there was none. Now that we have come to understand nature more, like Neil Tyson said, "God is just a pocket of receding scientific ignorance". I think it's more reasonable that there is something we have yet to uncover about nature, and when we discover it, it will be extremely profound. I mentioned this in another thread "What does 2+2=4 mean?, but I take the side that the universe is a purely mathematical structure (MUH). And if that is somehow proven to be the case, I think our knowledge will dead end when we "can't know" what the physical mechanism is that makes it manifest itself as reality. But at least at that point we'll know our knowledge didn't terminate at some type of intelligent being.

You didn't answer the question.

Why is it more reasonable that an inanimate, unintelligent "thing" created the universe as opposed to an intelligent Creator God? In point of fact, you have to show that an inanimate, unintelligent "thing" could somehow give birth to a universe as complex as ours and one that has creatures with intelligence in it. In other words, you have a much longer way to go than anyone who believes in a Creator God.

 

[Achilles6129]

At least we have evidence that inanimate and unintelligent things exist. Can't say the same for god(s). That makes the latter less reasonable.

Show me an example of an inanimate and unintelligent thing creating something like a car or airplane, for example.

 

[Davian]

Show me an example of an inanimate and unintelligent thing creating something like a car or airplane, for example.

Will you be able to meet this with an example of your "Creator God" creating something like a car or an airplane?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why is it more reasonable that an inanimate, unintelligent "thing" created the universe as opposed to an intelligent Creator God? In point of fact, you have to show that an inanimate, unintelligent "thing" could somehow give birth to a universe as complex as ours and one that has creatures with intelligence in it.

Intelligence is also complex and doesn't just come from nowhere. If the complexity of the universe somehow points to an intelligent designer, then what does the complexity of intelligence point to? Another designer?

In other words, you have a much longer way to go than anyone who believes in a Creator God.

Given the paucity of evidence for an intelligent designer, I don't think that's true.

 

[Moral Orel]

Show me an example of an inanimate and unintelligent thing creating something like a car or airplane, for example.

Show me an example of something like a car or an airplane coming to existence without needing to be built, and then I'll believe that God could have always existed without needing to be created first himself.

Some unintelligent things do create things that are at least slightly complex, but it's called coincidence. For instance, a toaster made these pictures:

I can clearly see faces, do you? Sure it isn't an airplane, but there's no statistical possibility that this could be done by anything without intelligence is there? Or is God concerned with the burn marks on our sandwiches now?

 

[KCfromNC]

Incorrect. You are confusing coherency with believability.

If you want to believe incoherent things are real that's on you. I don't find such an approach productive.

We know that a square circle is impossible because it is an incoherent concept. Not so with God. The concept of the Christian god is totally coherent.

Yeah, the Trinity is a totally coherent concept. There's never any church which calls it a mystery since it is so logically coherent and simple to explain.

Come on, be serious.

You may not believe he exists, but that does not mean he's incoherent.

My lack of belief is caused by the incoherence of the concept, not the other way around.

 

[KCfromNC]

Show me an example of an inanimate and unintelligent thing creating something like a car or airplane, for example.

Show me an example of an incorporeal creator existing at all. For bonus points, show an example of one existing before the universe existed.

 

[Albion]

Yeah, the Trinity is a totally coherent concept. There's never any church which calls it a mystery since it is so logically coherent and simple to explain.

Come on, be serious.

A doctrine that has been defined by the church up and down, from side to side, in almost redundant detail, can indeed by called "coherent," yes.

When the church calls something a "mystery" it doesn't mean that it's beyond all understanding. It means that how it comes to be is beyond our abilities to know; but it's not beyond our abilities to understand that it IS what it is.

My lack of belief is caused by the incoherence of the concept, not the other way around.

We usually just say that that's a lack of understanding on your part. Other people do understand, you know.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A doctrine that has been defined by the church up and down, from side to side, in almost redundant detail, can indeed by called "coherent," yes.

It's coherently polytheistic.

We usually just say that that's a lack of understanding on your part. Other people do understand, you know.

They pretend to, yes.

 

[Albion]

It's coherently polytheistic.

Oh no. Of all the criticisms that could be leveled at the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea that it's polytheistic shows just about the least comprehension of the belief and/or all the documents, statements, etc. that the church has produced.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh no. Of all the criticisms that could be leveled at the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea that it's polytheistic shows just about the least comprehension of the belief and/or all the documents, statements, etc. that the church has produced.

Oh no, should I be concerned? Do I need to study fashion in Milan before I may critique the emperor's new clothes?

 

[Albion]

Oh no, should I be concerned?

You're the one who volunteered that claim, so I'd say that doing that shows some level of concern. I merely replied to it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're the one who volunteered that claim, so I'd say that doing that shows some level of concern. I merely replied to it.

I was asking whether I should be concerned that I apparently lack the sophisticated fashion sense required to truly appreciate the emperor's stunning new garments.

 

[BroEd]

Jesus Christ! John 14:7, "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

 

[Achilles6129]

Will you be able to meet this with an example of your "Creator God" creating something like a car or an airplane?

Sure. The universe runs like a complicated machine.