Argument for God's existence.

[Moral Orel]

No. The only reason scientists are able to determine the causes of certain effects is because they already know those causes exist. Scientists do not identify causes merely due to the need for a cause of a singular effect.
And your argument from purpose is really just equivocating purpose with function. It’s really quite asinine.

I agree with all of this. You're being a bit rough on him, though. Ed's a nice enough guy.

But even worse is your last argument, which just baldly asserts that God is everything. Just wow. Are you serious?

I don't think this is accurate though. I think he means that God designed the universe in such a way that it would leave a clue about whodunnit, not that the universe is God Himself. It's ad hoc reasoning on his part and all, but I think you're wrong about what he's claiming.

 

[createdtoworship]

I think that, through no fault of yours, you missed my response. Red text, post 1035.

you didn't quote any of my post in your response, you quoted another post. So again, lets stay on track here.

please address this post:

Argument for God's existence.

 

[createdtoworship]

I agree with all of this. You're being a bit rough on him, though. Ed's a nice enough guy.

I don't think this is accurate though. I think he means that God designed the universe in such a way that it would leave a clue about whodunnit, not that the universe is God Himself. It's ad hoc reasoning on his part and all, but I think you're wrong about what he's claiming.

yes, he has a tendency of belittling those whom he disagrees with. Good post, maybe we can help him become a better person simply by repeatedly calling him out on it.

 

[Moral Orel]

yes, he has a tendency of belittling those whom he disagrees with. Good post, maybe we can help him become a better person simply by repeatedly calling him out on it.

Glass houses, bro.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

you didn't quote any of my post in your response, you quoted another post. So again, lets stay on track here.

please address this post:

Argument for God's existence.

I admit that this may have been a little unclear. I hope it's clear now.

Look back at post number 1035. You will see this in the lower half (the italicised parts are the quote you wanted me to answer. The red parts are my answer):

Ultimately the original atheists answered the question of "is there a God?"
they said "no." Because there is evil, and because there is no evidence of God.
Well now, that's an enormous simplification, probably an oversimplification, and possibly erroneous. But it's not completely unreasonable, so we can go with it for now...
later atheists Got smarter and realized they could not defend such a position, so in the late 1800's "agnostic" became a thing.
"Agnostic" became a thing because Thomas Huxley coined the word in 1869.
which is basically saying "I don't know."
I'm sure you've considered, certainly in areas other than religion, that saying "I don't know" when you do not, in fact, know, is a very sensible thing to do.
which is not really a statement of meaning.
The "meaning" is that I do not know something.
A statement that is void of any factual statement, is really not worth living for.....yes?
You're conflating different things here. Who ever said that people think agnosticism (or atheism) is what makes life worth living for them?
so then there was the new atheist, who simply negates theism.
we are "non theists, atheists."
we don't see evidence of God, and thus we are non theists.
Well, that makes sense. How exactly do you go about believing in a thing when you have no reason to think that it exists?
but they don't realize that in going negative, they are actually answering the question of if there is a God or not.
they are assuming no.
Yes. We can all see, Christians and atheists alike, that the world exists, and we all agree on the fact. But then Christians say "There isn't just the world. There are other worlds, and when you die, you still live on and go to them, with a being called God. Do you believe that?"
And the atheists say: "No".
so again the new atheist falls into the same error as the old atheist.
so again, if an atheist believes there is no God, they are a strict atheist. If they believe there is no evidence for God but do not know. Then that is no longer atheist but agnostic. So yes the atheist typically rejects the belief in a God, as per the meaning of the word atheism. Anti theist.
Did you not read earlier, gradyll, when I explained the difference between atheist (a lack of belief) and how it could be caused by agnosticism (a lack of knowledge)? To say it briefly, I lack knowledge of God (I am agnostic) and therefore I lack belief in God (I am an atheist).

You are an atheist too, in a way. Because the way you feel about Apollo, or Baldur, or Tefnut ("Well, I suppose it's not completely impossible for the legends about them to be true, but there's no evidence that they are, and it's much more likely that they're simply stories invented by the Ancient Greeks, Norse and Egyptians, so I certainly don't believe that they're real!") - that's how atheists feel about the God of the Bible.

And you know how we feel, and why we feel that way, because you think the same as me about every one of the thousands of gods who have ever existed, with one exception.
I just think about God the same way you and I think about gods. See?

 

[gaara4158]

I agree with all of this. You're being a bit rough on him, though. Ed's a nice enough guy.

I don't think this is accurate though. I think he means that God designed the universe in such a way that it would leave a clue about whodunnit, not that the universe is God Himself. It's ad hoc reasoning on his part and all, but I think you're wrong about what he's claiming.

Hmm, I guess my tone reflected the state I was in at the time. Looking back, that last part does seem a little rushed and dismissive. You’re probably right, I’ve just been made cynical and short-fused by some of the more ridiculous apologists here lately and it’s cost me some accuracy. Hey Ed, sorry about that.

yes, he has a tendency of belittling those whom he disagrees with. Good post, maybe we can help him become a better person simply by repeatedly calling him out on it.

You never addressed my last two responses to you where I said we had a chance to score a win-win. Have you learned the difference between bandwagon fallacy and scientific consensus yet?

 

[createdtoworship]

I admit that this may have been a little unclear. I hope it's clear now.

Look back at post number 1035. You will see this in the lower half (the italicised parts are the quote you wanted me to answer. The red parts are my answer):

Ultimately the original atheists answered the question of "is there a God?"
they said "no." Because there is evil, and because there is no evidence of God.
Well now, that's an enormous simplification, probably an oversimplification, and possibly erroneous. But it's not completely unreasonable, so we can go with it for now...
later atheists Got smarter and realized they could not defend such a position, so in the late 1800's "agnostic" became a thing.
"Agnostic" became a thing because Thomas Huxley coined the word in 1869.
which is basically saying "I don't know."
I'm sure you've considered, certainly in areas other than religion, that saying "I don't know" when you do not, in fact, know, is a very sensible thing to do.
which is not really a statement of meaning.
The "meaning" is that I do not know something.
A statement that is void of any factual statement, is really not worth living for.....yes?
You're conflating different things here. Who ever said that people think agnosticism (or atheism) is what makes life worth living for them?
so then there was the new atheist, who simply negates theism.
we are "non theists, atheists."
we don't see evidence of God, and thus we are non theists.
Well, that makes sense. How exactly do you go about believing in a thing when you have no reason to think that it exists?
but they don't realize that in going negative, they are actually answering the question of if there is a God or not.
they are assuming no.
Yes. We can all see, Christians and atheists alike, that the world exists, and we all agree on the fact. But then Christians say "There isn't just the world. There are other worlds, and when you die, you still live on and go to them, with a being called God. Do you believe that?"
And the atheists say: "No".
so again the new atheist falls into the same error as the old atheist.
so again, if an atheist believes there is no God, they are a strict atheist. If they believe there is no evidence for God but do not know. Then that is no longer atheist but agnostic. So yes the atheist typically rejects the belief in a God, as per the meaning of the word atheism. Anti theist.
Did you not read earlier, gradyll, when I explained the difference between atheist (a lack of belief) and how it could be caused by agnosticism (a lack of knowledge)? To say it briefly, I lack knowledge of God (I am agnostic) and therefore I lack belief in God (I am an atheist).

You are an atheist too, in a way. Because the way you feel about Apollo, or Baldur, or Tefnut ("Well, I suppose it's not completely impossible for the legends about them to be true, but there's no evidence that they are, and it's much more likely that they're simply stories invented by the Ancient Greeks, Norse and Egyptians, so I certainly don't believe that they're real!") - that's how atheists feel about the God of the Bible.

And you know how we feel, and why we feel that way, because you think the same as me about every one of the thousands of gods who have ever existed, with one exception.
I just think about God the same way you and I think about gods. See?

your still not getting it,

when atheists came on the scene they were in response to a question.

a question of if God exists.

the atheists said no, and became anti theist.

they said no for a variety of reasons including the presence of evil in the universe.

later on they got smarter and realized that they can't defend that position, so they adopted agnosticism, which is equivalent of saying "I don't know if God exists"

but that does absolutely nothing regarding the original intent of the atheists and goes against the original intent. Because that does nothing to answer the question "Is there a God," and further more if you ask an agnostic if they believe in God, they will rarely say "I don't know." So the question is answered for them in the negative, even without proof of it being negated.

later yet, atheists realized that agnostic didn't do it for them, so they re invented atheism to sound like agnosticism.

to mean "there is no evidence of God." So in trying to correct the error of agnosticism, they commit the same error, and don't answer the original question of "is there a God."

but at the same time, if you ask an atheist if they believe in God, they do answer the question in the negative, yet without having evidence that there is no God, and also affirming that atheists don't have to provide such evidence, because they "don't know."

so again the definition of the traditional athiest was "one who does not believe in God, but can't tell why"

and the definition of the agnostic "I don't know if there is a God, but I certainly don't want to believe in Him, and I can't tell you why."

 

[RichardY]

@InterestedAtheist
I wouldn't say they are just stories, but an attempt to understand reality.

The Norse religion does not work as a stable system. As the gods are flawed.

The Greek Pantheon has some merit. Prometheus(forethought) for example seeing that man was created without the means to sufficiently defend himself, stole fire from Olympus and was bound. I think the idea is that while perception is bounded, once a limit is reached anything in addition is pure creativity.

As for agnostic atheism. You can still have knowledge of creation without personally knowing the author. It's entirely possible a person may read an author's work and not know or attribute it to them.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

your still not getting it,

when atheists came on the scene they were in response to a question.

a question of if God exists.

the atheists said no, and became anti theist.

they said no for a variety of reasons including the presence of evil in the universe.

later on they got smarter and realized that they can't defend that position, so they adopted agnosticism, which is equivalent of saying "I don't know if God exists"

but that does absolutely nothing regarding the original intent of the atheists and goes against the original intent. Because that does nothing to answer the question "Is there a God," and further more if you ask an agnostic if they believe in God, they will rarely say "I don't know." So the question is answered for them in the negative, even without proof of it being negated.

later yet, atheists realized that agnostic didn't do it for them, so they re invented atheism to sound like agnosticism.

to mean "there is no evidence of God." So in trying to correct the error of agnosticism, they commit the same error, and don't answer the original question of "is there a God."

but at the same time, if you ask an atheist if they believe in God, they do answer the question in the negative, yet without having evidence that there is no God, and also affirming that atheists don't have to provide such evidence, because they "don't know."

so again the definition of the traditional athiest was "one who does not believe in God, but can't tell why"

and the definition of the agnostic "I don't know if there is a God, but I certainly don't want to believe in Him, and I can't tell you why."

gradyll, It's hard to respond to your post, because virtually every sentence would need correcting, and also I'm still not sure why you think this important. As far as I can tell, you're just picking a fight over something nobody cares about.

The thinking of an agnostic atheist is plain common sense. We can see this very easily if we just swap "God" for some other creature nobody believes in. Indeed, some have been invented for that very purpose.

Imagine a conversation like this:

I.A.: gradyll, do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?"
g: No, I don't.
I.A.:Why not?
g: There's no evidence it exists, there's no reason to think that it does exist. For that matter, we know that people actually made him up!
I.A.:But he might exist, mightn't he? How do you know he doesn't? Have you searched everywhere in the universe?
g: No. I don't need to. If you think he exists, give me evidence. Until then, why should I think that he exists?

Substitute fairies, ghosts or Thor for any of those, and it works just the same. and also with Yahweh.

Tell me how this is different to the thought processes of a person who doesn't believe in God or gods, and tell me why they are wrong.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@InterestedAtheist
I wouldn't say they are just stories, but an attempt to understand reality.

The Norse religion does not work as a stable system. As the gods are flawed.

The Greek Pantheon has some merit. Prometheus(forethought) for example seeing that man was created without the means to sufficiently defend himself, stole fire from Olympus and was bound. I think the idea is that while perception is bounded, once a limit is reached anything in addition is pure creativity.

As for agnostic atheism. You can still have knowledge of creation without personally knowing the author. It's entirely possible a person may read an author's work and not know or attribute it to them.

Sorry, Richard. Nothing you've said seems to be evidence that the God of the Bible is real.

By the way, the quote in your signature:
Psalm 14:1 & Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God: they have corrupted, and done an abominable work: there is none that doeth good.

What does that mean to you?

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll, It's hard to respond to your post, because virtually every sentence would need correcting, and also I'm still not sure why you think this important. As far as I can tell, you're just picking a fight over something nobody cares about.

The thinking of an agnostic atheist is plain common sense. We can see this very easily if we just swap "God" for some other creature nobody believes in. Indeed, some have been invented for that very purpose.

Imagine a conversation like this:

I.A.: gradyll, do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?"
g: No, I don't.
I.A.:Why not?
g: There's no evidence it exists, there's no reason to think that it does exist. For that matter, we know that people actually made him up!
I.A.:But he might exist, mightn't he? How do you know he doesn't? Have you searched everywhere in the universe?
g: No. I don't need to. If you think he exists, give me evidence. Until then, why should I think that he exists?

Substitute fairies, ghosts or Thor for any of those, and it works just the same. and also with Yahweh.

Tell me how this is different to the thought processes of a person who doesn't believe in God or gods, and tell me why they are wrong.

because I don't live my entire existence associating with people who deny flying spaghetti monsters. That is really the gist of this. See you have people claiming to be scientific in their perspective, that actually have no proof of it any more than we have proof of a flying spaghetti monster. I mean can an athiest prove their is no God? No. Yet they claim to be anti theist, or against the idea of God, but they cannot prove it. So again let me put this into terms you associated with. Say I am anti-spaghetti monster, so I start calling myself anti spaghetti monster. But then someone says, "so then you have evidence there is no spaghetti monster" No, no I don't I am just anti. I want to be against something even though there is no evidence, because I am emotionally mad at the spaghetti monster for ruining my life. But I have no evidence He exists, but if He did, I would be ticked off at him for existing. So no I don't really want him to exist, so I am anti-spaghetti monster.

I hope some of that came through.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

because I don't live my entire existence associating with people who deny flying spaghetti monsters.

No, but if you lived in a world in which most people believed in one, then you'd probably be an atheist of this sort yourself.

See you have people claiming to be scientific in their perspective, that actually have no proof of it any more than we have proof of a flying spaghetti monster.

That sentence does not make sense.

I mean can an athiest prove their is no God? No. Yet they claim to be anti theist, or against the idea of God, but they cannot prove it.

gradyll, this has already been explained to you, more than once. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

So again let me put this into terms you associated with. Say I am anti-spaghetti monster, so I start calling myself anti spaghetti monster.

And why would you be anti-spaghetti monster? Do you think that I am anti-God?

But then someone says, "so then you have evidence there is no spaghetti monster" No, no I don't I am just anti. I want to be against something even though there is no evidence, because I am emotionally mad at the spaghetti monster for ruining my life.

Your analogy is breaking down badly.
"Hands up, all people who call themselves atheists on this forum who are mad at God!"
Is it possible, gradyll, that you are projecting? That you believe in God because you love Him, and so imagine that anyone who doesn't believe in God must hate Him? Maybe it's this, or maybe you just don't understand that people don't hate things they don't believe exist.

But I have no evidence He exists, but if He did, I would be ticked off at him for existing. So no I don't really want him to exist, so I am anti-spaghetti monster.

gradyll, you have just demonstrated that you have no understanding of what atheism is or what atheists think.

I hope some of that came through.

It did. We clearly have a long way to go, because you have completely misunderstood the people you are arguing against.
Atheists are not mad at God. We believe that there is no God to be mad at.
Agnostic atheists do not say that they can prove God does not exist. Gnostic atheists do.
Neither of them is anti-God, any more than they are anti-Darth Vader, or anti-Voldemort.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, but if you lived in a world in which most people believed in one, then you'd probably be an atheist of this sort yourself.

That sentence does not make sense.

gradyll, this has already been explained to you, more than once. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

And why would you be anti-spaghetti monster? Do you think that I am anti-God?

Your analogy is breaking down badly.
"Hands up, all people who call themselves atheists on this forum who are mad at God!"
Is it possible, gradyll, that you are projecting? That you believe in God because you love Him, and so imagine that anyone who doesn't believe in God must hate Him? Maybe it's this, or maybe you just don't understand that people don't hate things they don't believe exist.

gradyll, you have just demonstrated that you have no understanding of what atheism is or what atheists think.

It did. We clearly have a long way to go, because you have completely misunderstood the people you are arguing against.
Atheists are not mad at God. We believe that there is no God to be mad at.
Agnostic atheists do not say that they can prove God does not exist. Gnostic atheists do.
Neither of them is anti-God, any more than they are anti-Darth Vader, or anti-Voldemort.

so you don't see the comparison obviously, but most reading this thread will.

and that is why I am writing it.

see it is obvious that there is emnity between the athiest and the giant spaghetti monster.

if I was anti-giant spaghetti monster, I would in essence be allowing it to rule my life, and ruin my life with giant anti pasta and anti spaghetti balls, negating all spaghetti of any sort in my daily life.

this would ruin my taste for italian food etc.

in attempting to ruin spaghetti, in essence spaghetti would ruin me.

if I truly wanted spaghetti to go away, i would not become anti spaghetti, I would simply eat pizza and be done with it.

why force my views of anti spaghetti on every one else by claiming the negation?

it makes no sense.

I hope this finally makes sense to you.

I have exhausted all that I know in showing you the foolishness of atheism.

and I know you won't agree, and that is ok. Others reading this will agree.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I know you won't agree, and that is ok. Others reading this will agree.

I'm honestly not sure that they will.
You don't really seem to understand why the Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented, or how people think about it, or what an atheist is.
Can I suggest that you do some research before you come on a forum to debate these matters?

 

[RichardY]

Sorry, Richard. Nothing you've said seems to be evidence that the God of the Bible is real.

By the way, the quote in your signature:
Psalm 14:1 & Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God: they have corrupted, and done an abominable work: there is none that doeth good.

What does that mean to you?

Severing yourself from Being, like sawing through a branch you're sitting on.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Severing yourself from Being, like sawing through a branch you're sitting on.

Just another unfounded claim.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm honestly not sure that they will.
You don't really seem to understand why the Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented, or how people think about it, or what an atheist is.
Can I suggest that you do some research before you come on a forum to debate these matters?

thank you for the debate sir, I have successfully refuted your point, and when you start belittling the other users here, it is evident that you lost. So thank you for confirming that part. Christians now know how to defeat atheism at it's very minimal definitions. And I think that is an important lesson. So thank you very much for being the opposing party. I appreciate that you have been for the most part polite until the end post, thanks.

 

[Moral Orel]

thank you for the debate sir, I have successfully refuted your point, and when you start belittling the other users here, it is evident that you lost. So thank you for confirming that part. Christians now know how to defeat atheism at it's very minimal definitions. And I think that is an important lesson. So thank you very much for being the opposing party. I appreciate that you have been for the most part polite until the end post, thanks.

LOL Did you just accuse @InterestedAtheist of resorting to belittling you because you think he failed to refute your point because he suggested you do some research before debating here? LOL Glass houses, bro.

I tried to reason with you the best I can about the basics of debate and logic, but I am at a crossroads here, to waste time with someone who doesn't know the basics, or to reply to someone who does.

Remember when you said this because you don't know what a negative claim is? Hahahaha!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

thank you for the debate sir, I have successfully refuted your point, and when you start belittling the other users here, it is evident that you lost. So thank you for confirming that part. Christians now know how to defeat atheism at it's very minimal definitions. And I think that is an important lesson. So thank you very much for being the opposing party. I appreciate that you have been for the most part polite until the end post, thanks.

I'm sorry you think that I was being impolite, gradyll. My observation was meant as friendly advice. If you think that you "won" our debate, then you will not consider that you need to learn anything, and probably won't.
It would be nice to think that other Christians will read your posts and think that they have learned the secrets of defeating atheism - but I am afraid we nonbelievers won't be so lucky as that.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm sorry you think that I was being impolite, gradyll. My observation was meant as friendly advice. If you think that you "won" our debate, then you will not consider that you need to learn anything, and probably won't.
It would be nice to think that other Christians will read your posts and think that they have learned the secrets of defeating atheism - but I am afraid we nonbelievers won't be so lucky as that.

sir it's not really a secret in defeating an indefensible position. Atheism is indefensible. Because it requires absolute knowledge of everywhere in the universe, where God isn't. As I have proven time and time again, if you reject this definition, then your definition of atheism does nothing at all to answer the question if God exists or not, and it self defeats anyway. So again. Thanks for allowing me to really research this and fully persuade me of this view. I hope I did my job and articulated it accurately.