Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

How is disproving any easier than proving? Either one requires facts. And you don’t believe in science having facts.

say I say I have evidence God exists because I saw him with my own eyes. And you say, hallucinations is common in the heat of the day. You disproved what I said. It may in fact be true that I saw God, but my eye witness testimony is not proof, because of the weakness of our senses. You can see water at the end of a hot road on a sunny day, but it's not the type of water you can drink, it's a mirage. So disproving something does not necessarily require facts, you just need to find a weakness in the argument. I don't say that I believe God exists because I can see Him. Even though I have had visions of heaven before. I don't rely on those testimonies as my sole reason for believing in God. I simply believe in God because I see a universe that was created. And because the universe was created, it must have had a creator. The universe did not spontaneously generate. That was disproved a hundred years ago.

and also it is important to note that you never refuted the fact that you are not here to politely discuss christianity, but rather to recruit for agnosticism, and to mock christianity. I think that needs to be brought up a few more times, since you keep changing the topic away from this. I can tell it makes you feel uncomfortable.

 

[gaara4158]

say I say I have evidence God exists because I saw him with my own eyes. And you say, hallucinations is common in the heat of the day. You disproved what I said. It may in fact be true that I saw God, but my eye witness testimony is not proof, because of the weakness of our senses. You can see water at the end of a hot road on a sunny day, but it's not the type of water you can drink, it's a mirage. So disproving something does not necessarily require facts, you just need to find a weakness in the argument. I don't say that I believe God exists because I can see Him. Even though I have had visions of heaven before. I don't rely on those testimonies as my sole reason for believing in God. I simply believe in God because I see a universe that was created. And because the universe was created, it must have had a creator. The universe did not spontaneously generate. That was disproved a hundred years ago.

and also it is important to note that you never refuted the fact that you are not here to politely discuss christianity, but rather to recruit for agnosticism, and to mock christianity. I think that needs to be brought up a few more times, since you keep changing the topic away from this. I can tell it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I’m simply not interested in your blind jabs at what my motivations might be. They are distractions from my attacks on the very crux of your argument.

So, your illustration shows you actually don’t know how proof works. One moment you’re saying we don’t need facts to disprove something, and yet both of your examples require the citation of facts (hallucinations and mirages happen) to disprove things. Which is it?

 

[createdtoworship]

I’m simply not interested in your blind jabs at what my motivations might be. They are distractions from my attacks on the very crux of your argument.

So, your illustration shows you actually don’t know how proof works. One moment you’re saying we don’t need facts to disprove something, and yet both of your examples require the citation of facts (hallucinations and mirages happen) to disprove things. Which is it?

you don't need to cite a fact that either happen, you simply need to cite that it does happen. For instance I don't need to prove that mirages happen as it is common knowledge. But to prove my point, even to prove mirages happen is impossible. as like I said most facts are improvable. So again let me repeat, you don't need to post facts to disprove something, only to prove it. Neither mirages or hallucinations are facts as they are soft science. You can't record someone's brain scan of a hallucination or a mirage. And photographs of mirages can be faked and photoshopped. So again I didn't use a fact to disprove what was said, only an appeat to common knowledge, even though unproven. I would think you need to reanalyze your statement.

so again I notice you didn't adress that you are not here to debate christianity honestly but to mock and ridicule it, and this is not according to forum rules. Agnostics are allowed to be here, but only if they don't use flames and insults, which you have already told me, you are perfectly okay with mocking christianity.

 

[gaara4158]

you don't need to cite a fact that either happen, you simply need to cite that it does happen. For instance I don't need to prove that mirages happen as it is common knowledge. But to prove my point, even to prove mirages happen is impossible. as like I said most facts are improvable. So again let me repeat, you don't need to post facts to disprove something, only to prove it. Neither mirages or hallucinations are facts as they are soft science. You can't record someone's brain scan of a hallucination or a mirage. And photographs of mirages can be faked and photoshopped. So again I didn't use a fact to disprove what was said, only an appeat to common knowledge, even though unproven. I would think you need to reanalyze your statement.

so again I notice you didn't adress that you are not here to debate christianity honestly but to mock and ridicule it, and this is not according to forum rules. Agnostics are allowed to be here, but only if they don't use flames and insults, which you have already told me, you are perfectly okay with mocking christianity.

“It does happen” is a fact. I don’t know of what significance “proof” is to you if “facts” are enough to “disprove” arguments like yours. You’re just all over the place.

 

[createdtoworship]

“It does happen” is a fact. I don’t know of what significance “proof” is to you if “facts” are enough to “disprove” arguments like yours. You’re just all over the place.

sir simply mentioning that mirages exist is not a fact that can be proven. As it relies on subjective eye site. Eyes can see all sorts of hallucinations, and/or innacuracies, so even though it's not proven to exist, it is still common knowledge and gives evidence to my point. So I believe this sufficiently refutes what you said. I am done talking about this with you. Saying ad hominems like: "your all over the place." proves my point that you have nothing intellectual left to defend your weak position, and I can sufficiently say it is effectively refuted.

Now back to your motive for being here. Now that we have established that you are breaking forum rules by being here (seeing that you admitted that mocking christians was acceptable practice in this post: Argument for God's existence.), are you being forthright with your motives and honest about them?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

“It does happen” is a fact. I don’t know of what significance “proof” is to you if “facts” are enough to “disprove” arguments like yours. You’re just all over the place.

Pssst...

Stop talking to him. It’s pointless.

You know he’s wrong. I know he’s wrong. Atheists here know he’s wrong. Christians here know he’s wrong. Everyone I’ve showed his posts to think he’s wrong. 12 year olds think he’s wrong. 70 year olds think he’s wrong.

And it does not matter to him in the slightest...

 

[createdtoworship]

Pssst...

Stop talking to him. It’s pointless.

You know he’s wrong. I know he’s wrong. Atheists here know he’s wrong. Christians here know he’s wrong. Everyone I’ve showed his posts to think he’s wrong. 12 year olds think he’s wrong. 70 year olds think he’s wrong.

And it does not matter to him in the slightest...

The fact that you feel you need to convince everyone I am wrong, should tell you something.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The fact that you feel you need to convince everyone I am wrong, should tell you something.

If you had read my post, you’d see that I don’t have to convince anyone you’re wrong. They already think that. I’m trying to convince people not to talk to you anymore, because it doesn’t do any good.

 

[createdtoworship]

If you had read my post, you’d see that I don’t have to convince anyone you’re wrong. They already think that. I’m trying to convince people not to talk to you anymore, because it doesn’t do any good.

I think it's ironic that someone who is skeptical of christianity, doesn't like talking to christians on a christian forum, but yet doesn't see the irony that all he has to do is find a forum that he agrees with, rather than flaming others he disagrees with on a forum he disagrees with.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, I didnt use the argument from ignorance, I used an argument from knowledge. What we know about effects and how we reason from the effects to determine a cause, this is done everyday in science.

cv: Nope. You did, I'm afraid. You stated, 'what else could it be?' Instead of using evidence to demonstrate the existence of your specific God, you instead deduced that it 'has to be God.'

Based on logic it has to be a being basically identical to God, how about that wording? Is that better?

cv: Also, "every law has a law giver". So why couldn't it just as well be 'universe-creating pixies?"

Because only persons can create laws.

cv: Also, there exists no scientific theory regarding an initial origin over being eternal. It remains theoretical...

I dont deny it is theoretical just like evolution it is a theory not a scientfic fact, but it is the strongest backed theory in science.

cv: You see, you are begging the question. The 'evidence for God's existence' actually requires evidence for His existence. Thu far, you have presented a small series of 'rule outs', and then assert your God.

No, I presented the most rational explanation for the existence of a universe like this one. This type of universe is very strong evidnce for the Christian God.

cv: Well, thus far, your arguments violate reasoning. Meaning, demonstrating fallacious reasoning.

No, see above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, I am referring only to real religious beliefs not something made up with hindsight to try to win argument. And that has many people that actually believe in it.

cv: It's not about 'winning an argument.' As I stated a while back...
Demonstrate the existence of your specific God, and game over. Until then, you can quote Bible passages, 'connect dots', express how many people have believed for centuries, and maybe even argue for 'divine hiddeness.'
If God's existence was 'known', then this entire topic would not exist.

I am not claiming I can PROVE His existence with certainty, only that abductive reasoning leads Him to be the most likely explanation for the existence of this universe.

cv: So I again ask, where exists this direct evidence?

The existence of this universe is the most direct evidence.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Even if it was eternal (which goes against all the evidence so far as I have shown in other posts) it is still contingent since everything in it is contingent therefore there is something upon which it depends for its existence and that would most likely be God.

cv: Um, like I stated prior, I can provide credible attachments, demonstrating the likelihood that the universe is eternal; just like you can provide the contrary As I stated, it is a divided topic entirely. Unlike biologists and the conclusion of 'macroevolution'.

But the consensus is that it is not eternal as I hvae demonstrated. Another piece of evidence that it is not eternal is that that means the past is infinite, if the past is infinite then we would never reach the present, but obviously we have reached the present, therefore the past cannot be infinite or eternal.

cv: Again, if the universe is eternal, the concept of creation becomes silly.

No, you still have the problems of contingency (you do know what that means dont you?) and never reaching the present.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Invalid argument. The maker of the painting did not exist uncaused, he had parents, and they had theirs, and so on.

You also suppose that an imagined "maker" of the universe had no beginning; there is no reason to not apply that same argument to the universe itself. You're merely pushing the "uncaused cause" one step back.

The universe is subject to time.. meaning there is a starting reference point. In order for there to be a starting point for a universe subject to time there has to be a realm that isn't subject to time to press the start button on our universe.

The "Creator" isn't subject to time. Time exist inside of the Eternity that the "Creator" resides in/is.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Nope. Scientists agree that the universe as we know it began to be the way it is about 13.8 billion years ago. A multiverse generating universes solves the 'what-happened-before' problem.

That's a simplistic way of looking at things. Regardless of how many multiverses exist.. they couldn't exist without something that isn't subject to time existing. The physical world isn't infinity. You're proposing the existence of a physical infinity which doesn't work.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Or, we can also say "The universe that supercedes time, never had a beginning, because it is outside of time." Just like the human body as a whole functions differently than its constituent parts, or a solid physical object is composed of quantum states which are definitely not solid, perhaps the universe itself is outside of time, even though "internally" it operates with time.

That is basically saying the same thing. If a portion of the universe exists outside of time then that is what Eternity is, and the portion that is subject to time.. is what the "physical universe" is.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That is basically saying the same thing. If a portion of the universe exists outside of time then that is what Eternity is, and the portion that is subject to time.. is what the "physical universe" is.

Since we can’t say with anything regarding certainty about what existed or what conditions were before the first moments of expansion, any argument that describes what “had to have been” or even what “likely occurred” is necessarily an argument from ignorance.

The only answer at this time is “I don’t know”.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is basically saying the same thing. If a portion of the universe exists outside of time then that is what Eternity is, and the portion that is subject to time.. is what the "physical universe" is.

Since we can’t say with anything regarding certainty about what existed or what conditions were before the first moments of expansion, any argument that describes what “had to have been” or even what “likely occurred” is necessarily an argument from ignorance.

The only answer at this time is “I don’t know”.

God does not have mass, therefore according to general relativity God is outside of time, or unaffected by time, and therefore does not have a beginning. A multiverse, would have mass, and therefore is affected by time, and thus according to cause and affect has a cause because it had a beginning (due to being affected by time).

unless a skeptic can prove that a multiverse did not have mass they cannot refute this solid argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think it's ironic that someone who is skeptical of christianity, doesn't like talking to christians on a christian forum, but yet doesn't see the irony that all he has to do is find a forum that he agrees with, rather than flaming others he disagrees with on a forum he disagrees with.

Do you ever happen to read other conversations folks around here are having? Do you see any hate spewing rhetoric going on in the threads made by other Christians? No, they're all nice and pleasant, atheists and Christians disagreeing, but getting along happily. Did you ever stop to think about why it is that all us awful atheists can have a polite conversation with all the other Christians? If we hate Christianity so much, why do we get along with them?

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you ever happen to read other conversations folks around here are having? Do you see any hate spewing rhetoric going on in the threads made by other Christians? No, they're all nice and pleasant, atheists and Christians disagreeing, but getting along happily. Did you ever stop to think about why it is that all us awful atheists can have a polite conversation with all the other Christians? If we hate Christianity so much, why do we get along with them?

sure, if mocking is getting along with them, then you may have a case. But here I have evidence of an agnostic trying to defend mocking others he disagrees with:
Argument for God's existence.

 

[Moral Orel]

sure, if mocking is getting along with them, then you may have a case. But here I have evidence of an agnostic trying to defend mocking others he disagrees with:
Argument for God's existence.

Do you see us mocking the other Christians? Not some vague hypothetical, I mean real discussions that are happening on these boards all around you. Do you see mockery happening anywhere else?

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you see us mocking the other Christians? Not some vague hypothetical, I mean real discussions that are happening on these boards all around you. Do you see mockery happening anywhere else?

yes sir, normally the course of action for the athiest or agnostic, is when they have no logical counter to the argument to belittle and say "no one believes you here" "12 year olds believe you are wrong" (as was said in this very thread a few posts above Argument for God's existence.), or mocking in other ways, subtle jabs, belittling. Whatever they feel like doing at the time. But I noticed you didn't say anything about how this agnostic said that mockery was good and was a form of "tough love."

Argument for God's existence.

but to answer your question, in the last 10 pages, I could probably find half a dozen flames, ad hominems, and other occasions of belittling done by atheists or agnostics toward myself. Would you like me to quote them for you?

I made a list for you:

OneTab shared tabs

 

[createdtoworship]

I think it is. If there are pixies that can create universes, it's logical to say that ours was created by them. That doesn't mean any sane person would actually propose that theory, but it's not a violation of any laws of logic.

I missed this one. Your post assumes there are pixies that can create universes. So it begs the question. It assumes this is a valid form of logic.