[pshewitt1]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
Religious people go "There is so much complexity in the world, surely it couldn't have come out of nothing, so God exists". However, God apparently doesn't need a creator.

Why don't religious people recognise this fallacy?

Equally as of yet we have no proof of how the big bang came to occur, so yet again both sides are equal... it could have been a big crunch formed from a previous universe, but then what created that...and so on, then on top of all of this we might only be holograms as our actual planet is on the skirts of a black hole, why don't we just enjoy our lives instead of giving them to causes which we believe fulfil them because we are part of a crowd... So here many sceptics would say, life is therefore meaningless. If you enjoy that notion please jump off a cliff, what difference will it make? none. Some of us however wish to enjoy our lives here on earth without interference...including that of religious propaganda's and Jihad's.

In summation scientists and religious people both cling to the idea that one will cancel the other out...

[KingMessi]

(Original post by py0alb)
You have misunderstood the OP's critique of the commonly used religious argument, which goes:

A: Everything must have a creator
B: Therefore the universe itself must have had a creator
C: The creator of the universe is the entity we call "God"
D: God does not have a creator

A and D are contradictory, therefore the argument is invalid. Normally religious people attempt to obfuscate this by saying something like "yeah but god is magic/unknowable/transcendent" but that's just bull****.

+rep for being concise and well-reasoned.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Trollin)
And? If it is 'untestable' as you say then what you're admitting is that there's no proof either way. Therefore believing either option is equally valid.

Just because something isn't provable isn't the same as being 50/50 in validity. We can't prove anything 100%, but you would be stupid to therefore assume that an apple might float because we can't conclusively prove gravity, wouldn't you?

Faith relies on blind acceptance, requiring no thought. No matter what proof arises in the negative direction to faith, the faithful will proclaim that god did it. So negative evidence is irrelevant to god. However it's telling that anything that points to the truth of god would be immediately sucked up and used by the same people to try and prove that god exists. So positive evidence is very relevant to god as opposed to negative evidence, which is ignored! That's why I don't expect anyone religious to see how illogical their view is, because it's fundamentally not based on any form of logic.

[thegodofgod]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
Religious people go "There is so much complexity in the world, surely it couldn't have come out of nothing, so God exists". However, God apparently doesn't need a creator.

Why don't religious people recognise this fallacy?

I personally believe that 'God' was created some time ago by a bunch of humans going around trolling people into doing things they wanted...

Just my opinion though...

[Trollin]

(Original post by py0alb)
You have misunderstood the OP's critique of the commonly used religious argument, which goes:

A: Everything must have a creator
B: Therefore the universe itself must have had a creator
C: The creator of the universe is the entity we call "God"
D: God does not have a creator

A and D are contradictory, therefore the argument is invalid. Normally religious people attempt to obfuscate this by saying something like "yeah but god is magic/unknowable/transcendent" but that's just bull****.

Yes, I agree that "but God is magic/unknowable/transcendent" is a poor argument.

The point is that we don't know enough about how the universe was created. It's a very abstract concept that something can come from nothing, which at some point has to have happened (unless something has always existed). Since science doesn't claim that the universe has always existed, then either a "God" has always existed or at some point something was created from absolute nothingness.

The point I'm trying to make (Not very well, sorry) is that statement A is already flawed. If a religous person tried to use argument A-D then it falls down straight away - and they're an idiot. I'm not claiming statement A, so everything that follows is meaningless.

[Trollin]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Just because something isn't provable isn't the same as being 50/50 in validity. We can't prove anything 100%, but you would be stupid to therefore assume that an apple might float because we can't conclusively prove gravity, wouldn't you?

Faith relies on blind acceptance, requiring no thought. No matter what proof arises in the negative direction to faith, the faithful will proclaim that god did it. So negative evidence is irrelevant to god. However it's telling that anything that points to the truth of god would be immediately sucked up and used by the same people to try and prove that god exists. So positive evidence is very relevant to god as opposed to negative evidence, which is ignored! That's why I don't expect anyone religious to see how illogical their view is, because it's fundamentally not based on any form of logic.

Please read the rest of the thread. I've already stated twice that I didn't mean the probabilities were both 50%.

[meraphox]

(Original post by thegodofgod)
I personally believe that 'God' was created some time ago by a bunch of humans going around trolling people into doing things they wanted...

Just my opinion though...

My thought exactly


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Kya]

If God was God, would he have had a creator?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[py0alb]

(Original post by Trollin)
Yes, I agree that "but God is magic/unknowable/transcendent" is a poor argument.

The point is that we don't know enough about how the universe was created. It's a very abstract concept that something can come from nothing, which at some point has to have happened (unless something has always existed). Since science doesn't claim that the universe has always existed, then either a "God" has always existed or at some point something was created from absolute nothingness.

The point I'm trying to make (Not very well, sorry) is that statement A is already flawed. If a religous person tried to use argument A-D then it falls down straight away - and they're an idiot. I'm not claiming statement A, so everything that follows is meaningless.

Tell that to Zaki! That crazy troll constantly claimed that nothing could happen that wasn't instigated by an intelligent being.

Hopefully he's be permabanned anyway.

[py0alb]

If the universe is a thread, then who was the OP?

[Trollin]

(Original post by py0alb)
Tell that to Zaki! That crazy troll constantly claimed that nothing could happen that wasn't instigated by an intelligent being.

Hopefully he's be permabanned anyway.

The problem is that there are a decent number of religious nutjobs that give normal ones a bad name :P

(Original post by py0alb)
If the universe is a thread, then who was the OP?

Exactly. Religion says God. Science says that something was created from nothing. To me, both possibilities are absolutely mind-blowing.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by Trollin)
...

Hard-core trolling, right here.

As they say, obvious troll is obvious.

[Trollin]

(Original post by Alpharius)
Hard-core trolling, right here.

As they say, obvious troll is obvious.

Perhaps my choice of username was less than ideal

Nothing wrong with good, honest debate

[Stuffcopier]

To reply to the original comment arguing against the notion of God existing forever. This is possible because the idea of 'time' is a created aspect. Before God created the heavens/universe etcetera, there was no Before now or later. No past present and future- merely Existance and non-existance. At which moment God existed and no one else. God created the notion of time, and then He created the universe and everything else.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[BeanofJelly]

(Original post by py0alb)
You have misunderstood the OP's critique of the commonly used religious argument, which goes:

A: Everything must have a creator
B: Therefore the universe itself must have had a creator
C: The creator of the universe is the entity we call "God"
D: God does not have a creator

A and D are contradictory, therefore the argument is invalid.

Not only are A and D contradictory, but C has no premise.

B doesn't imply C any more than it does "the creator of the universe is the big bang" or "the creator of the universe is an influence from another pre-existing universe", or "time loops back and the universe creates itself" etc etc

[thomaskurian89]

(Original post by Stuffcopier)
To reply to the original comment arguing against the notion of God existing forever. This is possible because the idea of 'time' is a created aspect. Before God created the heavens/universe etcetera, there was no Before now or later. No past present and future- merely Existance and non-existance. At which moment God existed and no one else. God created the notion of time, and then He created the universe and everything else.

But then, how did God have the time to create time?

[Stuffcopier]

Time is an abstract. You dont need time to create time. Just like u dont need love to create love. You dont need happiness to create happiness. You dont need sense to create sense.

Time is merely a concept which God has created for humanity to understand and use.



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[AnnaWintour]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
Religious people go "There is so much complexity in the world, surely it couldn't have come out of nothing, so God exists". However, God apparently doesn't need a creator.

Why don't religious people recognise this fallacy?

Why?? 'Cos when people were not given any rights back in the history, and had to make for living, they needed something that would keep them, some kind of hope that tomorrow will be better. You know Carl Marc's: Religion is opium for the population. As leader of a country, having people who do not bother you, you are able to do whatever you want. And that goes from one to another to another generation. Here we are. Now it is very hard to convince someone that god does not exist as they imagine. And that Jesus said not to build him churches. And what is realty? Churches everywhere. Why? If you were so religious, why more and more churches? We came to the fact of inconsistent believing in God. Personally, I am agnostic and I find it very hard to explain someone how the things really are. If we try to see objectively what the benefits are from taking your religious views (which you actually inherited and took for granted) one is sure: Wars !!! All wars are because of religion. If you don't believe me, just check.

[Carter78]

(Original post by Stuffcopier)
Time is an abstract. You dont need time to create time. Just like u dont need love to create love. You dont need happiness to create happiness. You dont need sense to create sense.

Time is merely a concept which God has created for humanity to understand and use.

And who reiterate the point of this thread. Who created God?

At least Physicists are working on the origins of the Universe - Krauss and Hawking are undoubtedly the people advancing human thoughts most eloquently and successfully in this regard. Can you ever work on the origins of God empirically?

[Carter78]

(Original post by AnnaWintour)
Why?? 'Cos when people were not given any rights back in the history, and had to make for living, they needed something that would keep them, some kind of hope that tomorrow will be better. You know Carl Marc's: Religion is opium for the population.

Wow. Carl Marc's, is that some sort of minimalist French designer?