[Okashira]

They say that the burden of proof is on Christians or any person of faith. That is definitely true, as we are told to have solid reason for our trust in God. This concept isn't like the intelligent design argument. Intelligent design try to point out different things about nature, showing how certain functions couldn't exist without other functions. Ultimately leading to the conclusion that it must have taken someone of intelligence to bring about this order. Yet that is still a God of the gaps argument. Plus if we are talking about the Christian God, intelligent design is the worse argument there is for God, in fact, it disproves God altogether. If God designed this universe as it is today, then God is chaotic at best, inept at worse.

This concept that I'm using would prove God did create this place, because "if" He did create, it would answer way more questions than what we would have come upon through regular science. (It would be a super science, an off-shoot of God's omniscience) The knowledge of science increases by itself increases pretty quickly on it's own. Yet with this concept, it would increase magnificently. Then if it does increase our knowledge, that would be the final proof for saying God did it.

For example, the Bible talks about life being in the blood, and that Adam became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. So I examine everything concerning blood and oxygen. Ask hypothetical questions, do experiments and so on. If I have a breakthrough concerning those things, going far beyond what we already know about them, that would help validate some of the things that were written in the Bible. Especially if it is shown that blood plays the most vital role concerning life.

Another example would be concerning what does God have to say about the universe. I know astronomers are trying to find a way to connect quantum mechanics with general relativity. If I find the answer to that problem by saying "God did it" and asking "how did He do it", that would be a proof for God's existence. So that is what this concept is capable of answering.

[Marc707]

(Original post by Okashira)
They say that the burden of proof is on Christians or any person of faith. That is definitely true, as we are told to have solid reason for our trust in God. This concept isn't like the intelligent design argument. Intelligent design try to point out different things about nature, showing how certain functions couldn't exist without other functions. Ultimately leading to the conclusion that it must have taken someone of intelligence to bring about this order. Yet that is still a God of the gaps argument. Plus if we are talking about the Christian God, intelligent design is the worse argument there is for God, in fact, it disproves God altogether. If God designed this universe as it is today, then God is chaotic at best, inept at worse.

This concept that I'm using would prove God did create this place, because "if" He did create, it would answer way more questions than what we would have come upon through regular science. (It would be a super science, an off-shoot of God's omniscience) The knowledge of science increases by itself increases pretty quickly on it's own. Yet with this concept, it would increase magnificently. Then if it does increase our knowledge, that would be the final proof for saying God did it.

For example, the Bible talks about life being in the blood, and that Adam became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. So I examine everything concerning blood and oxygen. Ask hypothetical questions, do experiments and so on. If I have a breakthrough concerning those things, going far beyond what we already know about them, that would help validate some of the things that were written in the Bible. Especially if it is shown that blood plays the most vital role concerning life.

Another example would be concerning what does God have to say about the universe. I know astronomers are trying to find a way to connect quantum mechanics with general relativity. If I find the answer to that problem by saying "God did it" and asking "how did He do it", that would be a proof for God's existence. So that is what this concept is capable of answering.

The bible's a load of rubbish in my opinion. You may have seen in other posts I talk about the book 'Conversations with God' by Neale Donald Walsch. Whether it's God speaking or not, the ideas are certainly very interesting. For example God himself says the bible is baloney and he calls it, I quote, "an unauthorised source". He also talks about creation and how it came to be, and trust me, the version he tells is unlike anything any religion has ever taught or even discovered/explored. It was a completely different concept, and one that no one would really ever think about or come up with. What I also find interesting is that in this book, "God" explains some fundamental things like why traditional prayer doesn't work, why there's no hell, why Hitler went to heaven (!!!) a swell as commenting on issues such as war, politics, sex and the environment. The ideas are extremely interesting and new, and it makes you think about God in a completely different perspective and you may come to realise that the 'God did it' argument isnt really that much of a cop out....

[Okashira]

(Original post by Marc707)
The bible's a load of rubbish in my opinion. You may have seen in other posts I talk about the book 'Conversations with God' by Neale Donald Walsch. Whether it's God speaking or not, the ideas are certainly very interesting. For example God himself says the bible is baloney and he calls it, I quote, "an unauthorised source". He also talks about creation and how it came to be, and trust me, the version he tells is unlike anything any religion has ever taught or even discovered/explored. It was a completely different concept, and one that no one would really ever think about or come up with. What I also find interesting is that in this book, "God" explains some fundamental things like why traditional prayer doesn't work, why there's no hell, why Hitler went to heaven (!!!) a swell as commenting on issues such as war, politics, sex and the environment. The ideas are extremely interesting and new, and it makes you think about God in a completely different perspective and you may come to realise that the 'God did it' argument isnt really that much of a cop out....

The Bible is not rubbish, but people's understanding of God has been off because they don't know God. Religion has been the bane of humanity, because it's main purpose have been about man trying to find God. Yet if God exists, on He can tell us what He is like.

With all that said, I believe the Bible is God's account. Through this concept of asking how did God create the universe and possible research from it, it would help prove His existence.

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by Okashira)
Through this concept of asking how did God create the universe and possible research from it, it would help prove His existence.

If you're trying to prove how God created the universe, you've already decided that he did create the universe. It shouldn't work like that, surely.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Okashira)
The Bible is not rubbish, but people's understanding of God has been off because they don't know God. Religion has been the bane of humanity, because it's main purpose have been about man trying to find God. Yet if God exists, on He can tell us what He is like.

With all that said, I believe the Bible is God's account. Through this concept of asking how did God create the universe and possible research from it, it would help prove His existence.

First of all, NO ONE knows god considering no one has ever physically seen him.

And the bible didn't come from god; some dude wrote it many years ago.

Also there is absolutely no proof of creationism, as it is a philosophy derived from a lack of understanding about our immediate surroundings. If we really were "created" by an all-knowing diety, we wouldn't be so weak and frail that damn near everything on earth is capable of killing us, like a tiny bacterial cell or a small insect.

I'd also like to add that despite you saying that there is proof of god and that god makes sense, you have yet to present facts and tie them to your conclusion. All you've said so far is that you know OF proof...

[That Bearded Man]

Well, what if the robot wasn't invented, two bits of metal crashed together, then, slowly, the metal eroded to make a robot.

Your analogy is great, but also your assuming that the robots creator is still about, fixing/damaging the robot with no one noticing.

[tonberry]

Is this what theists have come to in trying to support their beliefs? Really clutching at straws now to be honest...

[ceezmad1]

which gods?

show your work?

[Okashira]

(Original post by Converse Rocker)
If you're trying to prove how God created the universe, you've already decided that he did create the universe. It shouldn't work like that, surely.

It would be the "how" that would verify the "did". If I created something, I should be able to explain that something to it's minute detail. So, if I can explain the universe, the earth, and us in that kind of detail through researching what God has said, then saying God created the universe would be valid.

Instead of "God of the gaps" it would be "God who fills the gaps".

(Original post by KasanDude)
First of all, NO ONE knows god considering no one has ever physically seen him.

And the bible didn't come from god; some dude wrote it many years ago.

Also there is absolutely no proof of creationism, as it is a philosophy derived from a lack of understanding about our immediate surroundings. If we really were "created" by an all-knowing diety, we wouldn't be so weak and frail that damn near everything on earth is capable of killing us, like a tiny bacterial cell or a small insect.

I'd also like to add that despite you saying that there is proof of god and that god makes sense, you have yet to present facts and tie them to your conclusion. All you've said so far is that you know OF proof...

I haven't stated anything definitely just yet. Just that the concept works if God did in fact, created this place. I do say definitely that this concept would either prove or disprove God's existence. (The Christian God that is) In the meantime, I'm researching these things.

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Well, what if the robot wasn't invented, two bits of metal crashed together, then, slowly, the metal eroded to make a robot.

Your analogy is great, but also your assuming that the robots creator is still about, fixing/damaging the robot with no one noticing.

Your right that if the creator of the robot isn't around, this concept would be moot. Yet if the Christian God created this place, He is definitely around. So asking Him wouldn't be a problem. Truthfully, His account would be in the Bible.

[KasanDude]

(Original post by Okashira)
It would be the "how" that would verify the "did". If I created something, I should be able to explain that something to it's minute detail. So, if I can explain the universe, the earth, and us in that kind of detail through researching what God has said, then saying God created the universe would be valid.

Instead of "God of the gaps" it would be "God who fills the gaps".



I haven't stated anything definitely just yet. Just that the concept works if God did in fact, created this place. I do say definitely that this concept would either prove or disprove God's existence. (The Christian God that is) In the meantime, I'm researching these things.



Your right that if the creator of the robot isn't around, this concept would be moot. Yet if the Christian God created this place, He is definitely around. So asking Him wouldn't be a problem. Truthfully, His account would be in the Bible.

Alright, so if we take what you say as the truth and consult the bible for an explanation, we would see how the universe. OK so we have adam and eve. And they get expelled from Eden. According to the bible, we are their children. But then we'd be the result of hundreds of generations of incest... pretty revolting.

Please tell me you don't seriously believe that.

The problem is that you haven't really explained anything. We, as truthful atheists, have used history and facts. At the very least, we've argued correctly.

You, on the other hand, have said little, if anything, beyond "I'm right, you should believe me." The bottom line is that if you were speaking the truth, you'd be able to simply and concisely state evidence to support your claims. Yet you haven't done this.

The mere fact that you are still researching this shows that you yourself do know even know the evidence you claim exists. You are believing in something which you have no evidence of, which is a flawed methodology of life, my friend...

[Occams Chainsaw]

Complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes and therefore, we do not need to assume that there was a maker of the robot at all.

Secondly, the robot's maker is arguably a far more complex organism than the robot, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who designed such a complex designer?

[L'Evil Fish]

(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
Complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes and therefore, we do not need to assume that there was a maker of the robot at all.

Secondly, the robot's maker is arguably a far more complex organism than the robot, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who designed such a complex designer?

But then you'll argue who created that complex designer...
Imagine this, there's a target that a sniper has orders to shoot, he has him locked on and awaits orders to kill him, so he asks HQ. HQ then asks someone higher up, who asks someone higher up, who asks someone higher up ad infinitum. So it's endless and the target would never get shot, thus the creation would never be created... Therefore eternal regression is irrational, there must be a stop somewhere, and that somewhere is God.

[garfeeled]

this is basically Paley's watch argument so therefore the critiques still stand.

We know the robot has a creator because all other robots have a creator. we don't have other universes to look at and say "that universe lacks a creator and is really messed up therefore we have a creator". Its a poor analogy the universe isn't in a fixed state its expanding bits are exploding and becoming smaller bits. If the cogs of the robot were expanding and exploding the robot wouldn't work.

Also your committing the fallacy of composition. Things in the universe are created therefore the universe is created.

Lastly god did it is still a cop out as you provide no evidence that it was god it could be papa smurf or obi wan kenobi for all we know. In the words of Christopher Hitchens "that which can be asserted without evidence can be ignored without evidence"

[Occams Chainsaw]

(Original post by shadab786ahmed)
But then you'll argue who created that complex designer...
Imagine this, there's a target that a sniper has orders to shoot, he has him locked on and awaits orders to kill him, so he asks HQ. HQ then asks someone higher up, who asks someone higher up, who asks someone higher up ad infinitum. So it's endless and the target would never get shot, thus the creation would never be created... Therefore eternal regression is irrational, there must be a stop somewhere, and that somewhere is God.

I think your argument is unfair, since we know that the order doesn't go higher than the president, there is no higher position to look at. In the maker circumstance we have no idea where the chain ends and so we keep searching.

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by Okashira)
It would be the "how" that would verify the "did". If I created something, I should be able to explain that something to it's minute detail. So, if I can explain the universe, the earth, and us in that kind of detail through researching what God has said, then saying God created the universe would be valid.

I'm still not convinced by this, if you start with the question 'How did God create the universe?, then surely you've already decided that God does in fact exist, otherwise why would you be looking to see how he did it?

Plus it's impossible to explain how God created the universe, so this argument is irrelevant.

[L'Evil Fish]

(Original post by Occams Chainsaw)
I think your argument is unfair, since we know that the order doesn't go higher than the president, there is no higher position to look at. In the maker circumstance we have no idea where the chain ends and so we keep searching.

Why search, its a futile effort... Searching in vain to try and disprove these arguments... We should know it ends with God (lol I must sound weird) but yeah, but it ends.. (although there is the conspiracy of the president being Told what to do..)

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by shadab786ahmed)
But then you'll argue who created that complex designer...
Imagine this, there's a target that a sniper has orders to shoot, he has him locked on and awaits orders to kill him, so he asks HQ. HQ then asks someone higher up, who asks someone higher up, who asks someone higher up ad infinitum. So it's endless and the target would never get shot, thus the creation would never be created... Therefore eternal regression is irrational, there must be a stop somewhere, and that somewhere is God.

Which is why you don't ask for a creator in the first place. You ask how the universe can have arisen without a creator.

Because you can't ask for special treatment of your "god". Why should it be the final stop in this infinite regress? Why do we give it the special treatment of saying "everything needs to be created, except god, god doesn't need to be created"?

[L'Evil Fish]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Which is why you don't ask for a creator in the first place. You ask how the universe can have arisen without a creator.

Because you can't ask for special treatment of your "god". Why should it be the final stop in this infinite regress? Why do we give it the special treatment of saying "everything needs to be created, except god, god doesn't need to be created"?

Because God is special? And unlike anything else? So is exempt and receives "special treatment"...

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by shadab786ahmed)
Because God is special? And unlike anything else? So is exempt and receives "special treatment"...

There's no particular reason to give god special treatment from the axioms you attempt to use to prove god, if you do so, you make any proofs effectively invalid.

[L'Evil Fish]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
There's no particular reason to give god special treatment from the axioms you attempt to use to prove god, if you do so, you make any proofs effectively invalid.

And why is that, and they're not axioms... That implies my belief being totally abstract... -.-