The Student Room Group

If God exists, then who created HIM? HE DOESN'T EXIST!

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
This is just the kind of answer I expect from a closeminded Athiest *sighs*.


Hmm. So much for discussion.
Original post by ABeingOnEarth
God exists, period.


Lol what a fantastic argument 😂
Original post by loveleest
Lol what a fantastic argument 😂


Ikr
Reply 783
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes

Yes the fact that we don't know the beginnings of the universe does not imply God, I agree but there is so much out there which should make you really question why the idea of some higher diety even exists, especially when you look back at ancient civilizations for example and the very ancient ideas of worship. Why did people feel the need to worship something so much? why did people worship the sun or the moon?
It's not like they are entirely wrong about other things, their contributions to mathematics isn't something to be dismissed by our modern developed society. So why is this so easily dismissed?


Precisely, many philosophers of Ancient Greece tried to explain the world with rational arguments and logical suppositions, instead of using supernaturals explanations. This led some of them to conclude that god(s) did not exist; among them, there were people such as Pythagoras or Thales, the founders of Mathematics.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Josb
Precisely, many philosophers of Ancient Greece tried to explain the world with rational arguments and logical suppositions, instead of supernaturals explanations. This led some of them to conclude that god(s) did not exist; among them, there were people such as Pythagoras or Thales, the founders of Mathematics.


Can you prove to me that God doesn't exist?
Reply 785
Original post by ABeingOnEarth
Can you prove to me that God doesn't exist?

This is not how it works. If you assert something, you must prove it by bringing reliable evidences.

However, it is still possible to answer your question. Despite thousands of years of research by millions of people, there is still no proof of his existence, therefore we must assume that there is no god.
Original post by Josb
This is not how it works. If you assert something, you must prove it by bringing reliable evidences.

However, it is still possible to answer your question. Despite thousands of years of research by millions of people, there is still no proof of his existence, therefore we must assume that there is no god.


What research? I never heard of God Research.
But anyway you still con't PROVE god doesn't exist.
Reply 787
Original post by ABeingOnEarth
What research? I never heard of God Research.

It's just called "religion".

Original post by ABeingOnEarth
But anyway you still con't PROVE god doesn't exist.

You didn't answer my remark. The burden of proof is on you.
Original post by Josb
It's just called "religion".


You didn't answer my remark. The burden of proof is on you.


Using just logic it makes sense to me God exists. So the burden of proof is on you to prove to me God doesn't exist.
Well, you could absolutely reverse this argument. If God doesn't exist, then who created us? Science and evolutionary theories suggest to me that we did not create ourselves which leads to the logical argument that we must have a creator.
Reply 790
Original post by ABeingOnEarth
Using just logic it makes sense to me God exists. So the burden of proof is on you to prove to me God doesn't exist.

No, it's on you.

I cannot prove that something that you have not even properly defined does not exist. You have to accurately describe what is god first, then I can disprove it. This is how it works.
Original post by Josb
This is not how it works. If you assert something, you must prove it by bringing reliable evidences.

However, it is still possible to answer your question. Despite thousands of years of research by millions of people, there is still no proof of his existence, therefore we must assume that there is no god.


That's a very quick assumption to make. A thousand years of research on many things hasn't proved them. We find flaws in our scientific arguments all the time - just look up the history of the atom. Science is based on guesses and the fact that we've hadn't been able to guess something yet does not disprove it.
Original post by Josb
No, it's on you.

I cannot prove that something that you have not even properly defined does not exist. You have to accurately describe what is god first, then I can disprove it. This is how it works.


Yeah, you two just keep playing a ping-pong game with the burden of proof.
Reply 793
Original post by boombayah
That's a very quick assumption to make. A thousand years of research on many things hasn't proved them. We find flaws in our scientific arguments all the time - just look up the history of the atom. Science is based on guesses and the fact that we've hadn't been able to guess something yet does not disprove it.


Modern science is based on evidences, not guesses.
Original post by Josb
Modern science is based on evidences, not guesses.


Bro, if evidence was concrete like I think you're suggesting, we would never move forward. We can do the research we want with whatever is available to us but at the end of the day, it is us guessing whether that research is valid. You can draw a genetic comparison between primates and human beings and use the genetic similarity to conclude evolution. This is suggestion, not evidence. Ask any scientist.
Original post by zezno
Because I can keep saying "Then what created ____?"


And the answer would be nothing.Its been there forever.Just like you say about God.Except the difference with the universe is that we know it exists.If God can have always existed then so can the universe/ multiverse.This is really quite basic logic.
Original post by zezno
lol cmon man you can't just say it popped out of nothing. There has to be a cause


Actually you can.Cause and effect are things that apply inside this universe.They do not apply to stuff outside this universe.Before the universe there can only have been outside the universe.Which means that cause and effect did not have to apply before the universe existed.So yeah it could have just popped into being without a cause.
Idiotic comment paradoxes don't disprove or prove anything because they are just OXYMORONIC hypotheses its like saying "I can see what's invisible to myself" well if if you can see it it's not invisibkle to you that's just a play on definitions it doesn't actuallt mean anything
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
But I just don't understand why athiests can't see how this "The answer is currently that we don't know" also applies to the topic of God.

It does. I do not believe the religious claim that a god exists, as there is no credible evidence. It is for religions to prove it to atheists, if they want them to believe their claims. The default position is not to believe, but that isn't an assertion that a god does not exist.

It's exactly the same as saying that we don't know if invisible unicorns exist, but, as there's no evidence, I don't believe that they do either. If there were credible evidence, I'd change my belief.
Original post by Good bloke
And that is the special pleading, since the whole basis of the argument is that everything has a cause. But, rather conveniently, we are told, not the thing that you need to close your own loop.

As for an infinite regress, how is that any more intractable than a deity that does not have a beginning? It is merely the other side of the same coin.


Sorry man, you've probably heard a lot of people try and argue this position without a clear argument, but the argument is not based on the premise that "everything has a cause" but rather the premise that everything which has a beginning has a cause behind it. Once again, based upon the domino effect of existence. And that very idea and argument itself is based upon this view that for existence to come about, there must be a source of existence to kick off the chain.

Maybe another analogy might help cos I know I used to struggle with the concept and it helped me. It's that of borrowing and lending iPods. Theoretically, if I ask you to loan an iPod from you, you tell me Person A has it and you'll ask them if you can borrow it. Person A says Person B has one and he'll loan it from them and asks them, Person B says Person C and asks them and so on... In the series, each member can only lend if it first borrows. If the series goes on forever though, A's never going to get an iPod, UNLESS it stops with an owning lender. Someone who has an iPod without having to borrow it first. Except instead of iPods, it's existence.

Unless you stop the existence chain, nothing will have existence. You must have something that exists in and of itself. That's the fundamental of the argument. If you start asking what caused this first owning lender, then you put it down to the position of borrowing lender. And that's not what we're saying he is. We're saying he's a necessary being that exists in and of itself, which must be there for existence even to happen. It's a category error. I hope that makes some sense? Hopefully that clarifies where the infinite regress is different from the infinite cause as well, the infinite regress would mean no existence and the infinite cause actually explains existence.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending