Argument for God's existence.

[ToddNotTodd]

You say I don't have proof

Show me one post where I ask for “proof”. I never ask people for proof. You seem incapable of accurately portraying what people are actually saying.

yet you offer a positive statement of infinite scenarios,

I didn’t say “infinite scenarios”.

with no proof?

Oh come on, this isn’t difficult. Besides all the deities that have been described over the centuries, you can easily come up with a list of non interventionist gods that would send you to everlasting torture for being a Christian. These gods don’t have evidence they exist, but if they’re potentially possible, they get a spot on the wheel.

Isn't that sort of self refutation?

No, because that’s not even what “self refutation” means...

 

[createdtoworship]

I will conclude with this, every athiest denies the existence of God. When we see a creation you have proof of a creator. Athiest's refuse to see the basic logic there. But then say that there is a multiverse that created the known universe. So how can you deny the existence of a creator but at the same time say the universe was created? Its called a self defeating argument. With that last comment, I thank all who participated. If I open a new thread I will let you know. Thanks again. Thanks for being fairly reasonable as far as not posting insults, that is mature of you. That makes me desire to debate in other threads. Also thanks for giving me a break. I know you plan on never debating me again, and I wish you well on that. I sometimes feel you can't help but to post. But I hope you keep all the promises you make to yourself, that is an important step-in the right direction.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I will conclude with this, every athiest denies the existence of God. When we see a creation you have proof of a creator. Athiest's refuse to see the basic logic there.

No, atheists refuse to accept the extremely basic fallacious reasoning there.

Far from being a 'logical debater', you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, atheists refuse to accept the extremely basic fallacious reasoning there.

Far from being a 'logical debater', you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.

I apologize but I don't address insulting posts, if you wish to reword and/or delete parts of your post I don't mind addressing it.

 

[Moral Orel]

I will keep posting this argumentality until someone at least provides an argument worthy of a refutation.

I made a bunch of points that you couldn't refute, so you ignored them. I'm chalking those up as victories for me.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I apologize but I don't address insulting posts, if you wish to reword and/or delete parts of your post I don't mind addressing it.

Pointing out ignorance is not an insult.

Disagreeing with a boastful description someone has applied to themselves is not an insult.

The fact that you regard basic scrutiny as an 'insult' is very telling.

 

[createdtoworship]

I made a bunch of points that you couldn't refute, so you ignored them. I'm chalking those up as victories for me.

I don't remember that, but I do remember someone pointing out infinite possibilities, was that you? If so, you would remember that I asked for proof of the infinite possibilities.

 

[createdtoworship]

Pointing out ignorance is not an insult.

Disagreeing with a boastful description someone has applied to themselves is not an insult.

The fact that you regard basic scrutiny as an 'insult' is very telling.

I apologize, but I don't respond to posts that insult. you said "you have no clue what you are talking about"

that is a flame, and an insult and is against the rules.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't remember that, but I do remember someone pointing out infinite possibilities, was that you? If so, you would remember that I asked for proof of the infinite possibilities.

I never ignored any of your posts to me. You ignored more than a few of mine. I haven't made a single insult thus far, which you take the time to tell people that you don't respond to insulting posts, so it must be because I have answers to the problems you've posed and you don't have refutations of my points.

The infinite possibilities bit was someone else. He answered your question and you haven't responded to that post either.

 

[createdtoworship]

I never ignored any of your posts to me. You ignored more than a few of mine. I haven't made a single insult thus far, which you take the time to tell people that you don't respond to insulting posts, so it must be because I have answers to the problems you've posed and you don't have refutations of my points.

The infinite possibilities bit was someone else. He answered your question and you haven't responded to that post either.

I realize that I miss posts, the reason is a flaw in CF, there is no way to see all new posts or all unread new posts. I usually respond to the last past for sure, and some of them after that I may miss. I apologize. If I don't reply to it, it's not that I am avoiding you. Just post a link to your post and I will adress it.

 

[Moral Orel]

I realize that I miss posts, the reason is a flaw in CF, there is no way to see all new posts or all unread new posts.

Sure there is. The Alerts tab works just fine for me. But really, it's just as easy as reading all the posts in your thread.

Just post a link to your post and I will adress it.

It would be a list of posts, not just one. And I'm not very confident I'd receive a response if I went through all the trouble of tracking them all down. Why should I be responsible for that anyways? Did I make a mistake?

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure there is. The Alerts tab works just fine for me. But really, it's just as easy as reading all the posts in your thread.

It would be a list of posts, not just one. And I'm not very confident I'd receive a response if I went through all the trouble of tracking them all down. Why should I be responsible for that anyways? Did I make a mistake?

You are correct. But I don't do alerts for any social media. It can't interfere with my personal time with God, family time, or work. But besides having alerts there is no way to see all unread posts.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure there is. The Alerts tab works just fine for me. But really, it's just as easy as reading all the posts in your thread.

It would be a list of posts, not just one. And I'm not very confident I'd receive a response if I went through all the trouble of tracking them all down. Why should I be responsible for that anyways? Did I make a mistake?

Well sir if it's really that important to recieve a reply you would find time. I am out to lunch with the family at the moment. I sort of think you don't really wish for a reply after all.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure there is. The Alerts tab works just fine for me. But really, it's just as easy as reading all the posts in your thread.

It would be a list of posts, not just one. And I'm not very confident I'd receive a response if I went through all the trouble of tracking them all down. Why should I be responsible for that anyways? Did I make a mistake?

I just looked through this weeks posts of yours, I don't see anything related to the topic of this thread. Are you sure you posted rebuttals to this thread? Are you sure your not thinking of another thread?

 

[createdtoworship]

now that this thread is dying down, i want to post the OP again, and we can clearly see that in 38 pages, this op has not been refuted so here it is again (if you disagree with this, please post the post number so we can all see it)

here is the OP:

Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that. All that is needed is this.... If you have a painting how do you prove there was a painter? It's inherent. If you see something made how do you prove there was a maker that made it? It's inherent. We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism. I am simply talking about cause and effect. If you see something made, it had a maker, if you see something painted it had a painter. The universe is here. So it boils down to the fact that it made itself from nothing, or something made it. Period. The maker on the other hand would be supernatural, and prexisted time and space. So there was no beginning to the maker. Time is a physical property that requires mass to operate according to Einsteins theory of relativity. If a maker was supernatural (beyond the physical universe), then it would naturally follow that He was beyond time as well. Because of the fact He superseded the physical universe.

When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation.

(here is an article showing a survey done in 2009 that 51% of scientists believe in a higher power: Scientists and Belief)

update:

(disclaimer: I don't believe we can prove most things. Most facts cannot be proven, most science cannot be proven etc. However I believe that some things can be proven. The universe had a maker. We all accept this, or the alternative is that the universe made itself, spontaneous generation was disproven 100 years ago, thus there is only one option. The universe was created. Now the thing that created the universe, must according to cause and affect have intelligence, and be rational. It must also contain any positive character traits, self sacrificial love etc. Things that are not explained by herd instinct. Herd instinct accounts for some morality, but not self sacrificial love. A wolf may gather food for the rest of the pack, but not at it's own demise, it will most likely eat first, then get it. Humans on the other hand have been known to sacrifice for others. This type of love has no natural origins. Thus the one who created the universe must have that type of love, in order to create it in it's creation. The only thing that resembles a loving creator that is intelligent and rational. Is the Christian God. This to me is proof.

 

[cvanwey]

now that this thread is dying down, i want to post the OP again, and we can clearly see that in 38 pages, this op has not been refuted so here it is again (if you disagree with this, please post the post number so we can all see it)

here is the OP:

Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that. All that is needed is this.... If you have a painting how do you prove there was a painter? It's inherent. If you see something made how do you prove there was a maker that made it? It's inherent. We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism. I am simply talking about cause and effect. If you see something made, it had a maker, if you see something painted it had a painter. The universe is here. So it boils down to the fact that it made itself from nothing, or something made it. Period. The maker on the other hand would be supernatural, and prexisted time and space. So there was no beginning to the maker. Time is a physical property that requires mass to operate according to Einsteins theory of relativity. If a maker was supernatural (beyond the physical universe), then it would naturally follow that He was beyond time as well. Because of the fact He superseded the physical universe.

When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation.

(here is an article showing a survey done in 2009 that 51% of scientists believe in a higher power: Scientists and Belief)

update:

(disclaimer: I don't believe we can prove most things. Most facts cannot be proven, most science cannot be proven etc. However I believe that some things can be proven. The universe had a maker. We all accept this, or the alternative is that the universe made itself, spontaneous generation was disproven 100 years ago, thus there is only one option. The universe was created. Now the thing that created the universe, must according to cause and affect have intelligence, and be rational. It must also contain any positive character traits, self sacrificial love etc. Things that are not explained by herd instinct. Herd instinct accounts for some morality, but not self sacrificial love. A wolf may gather food for the rest of the pack, but not at it's own demise, it will most likely eat first, then get it. Humans on the other hand have been known to sacrifice for others. This type of love has no natural origins. Thus the one who created the universe must have that type of love, in order to create it in it's creation. The only thing that resembles a loving creator that is intelligent and rational. Is the Christian God. This to me is proof.

Again, if the universe is eternal, then nothing you have reiterated is relevant.

 

[Moral Orel]

I just looked through this weeks posts of yours, I don't see anything related to the topic of this thread. Are you sure you posted rebuttals to this thread? Are you sure your not thinking of another thread?

I just posted this on Monday to try to get you back in a discussion about multiverse theory that we were discussing before, such as whether the multiverse is timeless or intelligent:

Now personally, I like the multiverse theory. It isn't a full belief I hold, but there's enough evidence for it to be plausible, so I can't reject it, and I find it interesting. Your argument requires disproving multiverse theory, so the burden is yours to prove it impossible. I only need to prove it possible, which is much easier. I'd love to discuss it with you here, but every other post of mine to you that I quote you and ask you questions, you ignore, so our conversations don't go anywhere.

See that last sentence? You ignored this post too even though I quoted you in it. You've referred to the multiverse multiple times throughout the thread, so it seems to be on topic to me.

Well sir if it's really that important to recieve a reply you would find time. I am out to lunch with the family at the moment. I sort of think you don't really wish for a reply after all.

I have put in the effort, repeatedly. You dodge my questions because you don't have answers. If you don't acknowledge them, you can tell yourself that you haven't lost a point, I guess. It's awfully rude of you to keep insisting that I go back and point out all the times that you ignored me, don't you think?

 

[createdtoworship]

Again, if the universe is eternal, then nothing you have reiterated is relevant.

the universe has mass, we know that as evidence by all the photographs from nasa about mass in the universe, flying around. That means that it is under time. If it is in time, it had a beginning. Secondly nearly all scientists have changed their view of an eternal universe because of recent discoveries the last twenty or so years and now believe it was created by a multiverse (that is eternal).

but at that point, I would ask

how did a multiverse gain creative abilites?

and why would a multiverse decide to extend energy to create a completely separate universe, that is has no contact with?

not very logical to hold that position.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, that's Shifting the Burden of Proof, not an Appeal to Ignorance. To be fair, I saw an atheist explain it the same way, I forget who, but he was wrong too.

Appeal to ignorance goes like this, "You don't know why X, therefore Y". So it's an Appeal to Ignorance to say, "You don't know about the origins of the universe, therefore God created it". An example of you attempting such an argument would be when you asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?". I don't know why there is something instead of nothing, but my ignorance isn't evidence that God created stuff.

Now personally, I like the multiverse theory. It isn't a full belief I hold, but there's enough evidence for it to be plausible, so I can't reject it, and I find it interesting. Your argument requires disproving multiverse theory, so the burden is yours to prove it impossible. I only need to prove it possible, which is much easier. I'd love to discuss it with you here, but every other post of mine to you that I quote you and ask you questions, you ignore, so our conversations don't go anywhere.

thanks for going back, I went back till monday, but you posted this sunday night, I didn't go back that far, but I did go to your profile and looked at a weeks worth of posts, so I think I did my fair share,

now relating to your post.
I have answered that question numerous times in this thread, I dont' need to prove it false. You have to prove it right.

I think you have your burden of proof wrong.

it's not that you have to prove it possible, and I have to prove it wrong.

it's that you have to prove it right, and all I need to find is a slight weakness in it.

and i did in my last post,

I won't reply here, just scroll up and read it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Secondly nearly all scientists have changed their view of an eternal universe because of recent discoveries the last twenty or so years and now believe it was created by a multiverse (that is eternal).

Show evidence this statement is correct.