Turn on thread page Beta

God is real. watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will98765)
    Yeh and Mr Tickle exists too because there's a book about him
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Oh and Jesus is gay, he loves giving and receiving
    (Original post by TheThiefOfBagdad)
    Both of you stay of threads that are too intelligent for you.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    Shut up you smell so bad
    Here
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3413727
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    The OP assumes that a) the laws of thermodynamics are falsifiable b) that something must always have a cause and c) that something which is apparently inexplicable must be caused by something which is logically impossible.
    Prove God isn't real asshe
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The unspoken rules of TSR, number 2:

    Any thread with title 'God', 'Religion' or 'Muslim' must be bombarded by atheists shouting
    'GOD ISN'T R3AL ERMAHGGEDEFRDDD'
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Stfu beta op
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    He made himself obv.
    With that logic why can't it be said that the universe created itself? Also, what did God make himself out of? What made the stuff God made himself out of?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidMIliband)
    How did god come from nothing? your argument has a contradiction.
    This is a mistake because there is no reason to think God came from nothing. He could be a being which cannot not be. This is an at least plausible definition of God, and i think less plausible as a function of the definition of material matter.

    However, the actual problem with Op's "argument" is that why couldn't there have always never not been some physical thing ( and we don't even have to think about necessity here, as the universe/existence of things could contingently have existed infinitely. Possibly, maybe that's a place to start a debate) so he hasn't shown why it is necessary that the universe started from nothing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    How can you get something out of nothing?

    Exactly you can't thus god is real.


    End of discussion.
    how did a god create something (the universe) out of nothing? your god of the gaps really isn't a logical explanation for anything at all. it could be the case that something existed before the universe, *or* something *did* come from nothing - but the role of a deity doesn't exist here. you have to press him into the equation against any kind of necessity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    The OP assumes that a) the laws of thermodynamics are falsifiable b) that something must always have a cause and c) that something which is apparently inexplicable must be caused by something which is logically impossible.
    A) I his assumption (which I think A refers to) that something cannot come from nothing is nothing to do with the physical laws of energy and more to do with the metaphysical assumption that something cannot come from nothing (the onus is on anyone who disagrees with that to refute it tbh).

    B) Actually, his assumption here can be refined to, in light of quantum mechanics etc, everything must have a cause for its existence if it exists. Well, again, that's an intuitive enough premise to warrant an argument to not accept it.

    C) So any definition of any Creator God of any description is logically impossible? So you can go through every single possible definition of a God, as long as it creates the universe, and find some contradiction in all of them????

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Evolution can't even explain where the XY sex chromosomes came from. Thus science is flawed and God is real! Also there's nothing to lose if you believe in God but there is eternal damnation to gain if you don't believe in Him and He does exist, which he does. But at the end of the day everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So go ahead believe what u want. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would believe in God.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeaAndTextbooks)
    Evolution can't even explain where the XY sex chromosomes came from. Thus science is flawed and God is real! Also there's nothing to lose if you believe in God but there is eternal damnation to gain if you don't believe in Him and He does exist, which he does. But at the end of the day everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So go ahead believe what u want. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would believe in God.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It can though lmao
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    If god is real, then metaphysics doesn't come into it. The onus is on those who believe in the metaphysical to prove such things exist, not on everybody else. 1

    God does not even need to be disproved, because "god" does not even qualify as a hypothesis: a feasible explanation for a series of observations. 2

    That every effect must have a cause is an assumption: an assumption that has proved very useful for us, but an assumption all the same. For hypothetical first causes, it is isn't possible to determine if it absolutely has nothing preceding it. 3

    Finally, god, as all supernatural entities are, is a logically impossible concept. To say that something contravenes the laws of nature is an oxymoron. Either it is within the laws of nature, or it does not exist.4
    This post is confused.

    1. ...I'm not sure what this even means. "If God is real then our reasoning of definitions doesn't come into it" is just a silly point. And if you think that metaphysics is meaningless, you're too late logical verificationism was disproven about 70 years ago. We have model logics which give us paramitres to meaningfully discuss metaphysical concepts.

    2. Of course "God" isn't a hypothesis. You do not posit a single object as a hypotheses. That would be like positing "An electron" as a hypothesis in quantum theory, which is absurd. So I really don't see what you're getting at here.

    3. Assume some definition of God which entail's its necessary permanence, and everything else's contingency (ontological dependence) towards it. You have just determined logically that no prior cause could have caused this being, if it did exist. And sure, we'll struggle to prove causation, but any theist who made an argument that logically entailed God if we merely accept that some form of causation exists would be a very, very happy theist. An outright rejection of the premise requires some argument, not just "it's logically possible that it's not true".

    4. This is silly. Suppose you trivial and superficial definitions, which you imply, are true. Then God, as an entity which exists, is not supernatural. You'll argue that but God IS supernatural, and therefore (by definitions we wouldn't hold to), God CAN'T exist. Well, what aspect of the definition of supernatural precludes God's not being natural if supernaturalism is to do with ontology? To define that term in a way so as to preclude ANY definition of God you'll have to resort to ridiculous definitions like "for any object X, if object X is in anyway Godlike, X does not exist" and you'll have to resort to defining Godlike to mean anything you can think of that could be conceived as a good.

    And obviously, you'll have just resorted asserting that "anything i think can be called a god doesn't exist, according to my ultra special definition" which is ridiculous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Science can't explain how life originated
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    He made himself obv.
    So god can make himself out of nothing and the universe can't? The word 'obv' is completely wrong it is not 'obv' at all, in fact it has talking thelogists since the beginning of human thinking and they are still having debates. So for you to say obv, is really disrespectful and frankly just shows your ignornace
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ashtar)
    No, God always existed
    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH AHAHAHHAHAHA. AHHAHAHAHAHAHAH. AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. If God existed before the Universe, you are saying that god existed in nothingness. That makes no sense.
    And you are saying that god exists because if he 'always' existed then he must have existed before the Universe began (approx 14 billion years ago). Plus you can say 'always' cos 'always' is a word relating to time and time only began after big bang, before it there was no time, relative to us.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samendrag)
    If God existed before the Universe
    Who said the universe started with the big bang ? There is no scientific proof of that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    This post is confused.

    1. ...I'm not sure what this even means. "If God is real then our reasoning of definitions doesn't come into it" is just a silly point. And if you think that metaphysics is meaningless, you're too late logical verificationism was disproven about 70 years ago. We have model logics which give us paramitres to meaningfully discuss metaphysical concepts.

    2. Of course "God" isn't a hypothesis. You do not posit a single object as a hypotheses. That would be like positing "An electron" as a hypothesis in quantum theory, which is absurd. So I really don't see what you're getting at here.

    3. Assume some definition of God which entail's its necessary permanence, and everything else's contingency (ontological dependence) towards it. You have just determined logically that no prior cause could have caused this being, if it did exist. And sure, we'll struggle to prove causation, but any theist who made an argument that logically entailed God if we merely accept that some form of causation exists would be a very, very happy theist. An outright rejection of the premise requires some argument, not just "it's logically possible that it's not true".

    4. This is silly. Suppose you trivial and superficial definitions, which you imply, are true. Then God, as an entity which exists, is not supernatural. You'll argue that but God IS supernatural, and therefore (by definitions we wouldn't hold to), God CAN'T exist. Well, what aspect of the definition of supernatural precludes God's not being natural if supernaturalism is to do with ontology? To define that term in a way so as to preclude ANY definition of God you'll have to resort to ridiculous definitions like "for any object X, if object X is in anyway Godlike, X does not exist" and you'll have to resort to defining Godlike to mean anything you can think of that could be conceived as a good.

    And obviously, you'll have just resorted asserting that "anything i think can be called a god doesn't exist, according to my ultra special definition" which is ridiculous.
    what a superb post. You a philosophy student by any chance?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    My definition wasn't especially special, and I really do not see why a single object (as vague as you are being in defining it) cannot be the subject of a hypothesis.

    If you are telling me that an omnipotent, omnipresent entity exists in my halls, based on your observations, that certainly would qualify as a hypothesis. I can tell you however that no such entity has ever been observed in any of the places where it has been supposed to exist, in any measurable display of force.

    If god is real, by definition, it would be a physical phenomenon (...and would thus be contrary to the definition of god, so yes, an oxymoron: I DID say this). Try to demonstrate the metaphysical if you wish, but I should tell you it would be self-defeating. Quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to do with metaphysics.
    Because a hypothesis has to at least contain a sentence. "God created the universe" could be one, but merely "God"? No.

    So, you're committed to both A: That non physical object are logically impossible (they can exist in no possible world, merely saying the sentence entails some contradiction) and that B: that it's literally impossible to define God as physical. Controversial.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeaAndTextbooks)
    Evolution can't even explain where the XY sex chromosomes came from. Thus science is flawed and God is real! Also there's nothing to lose if you believe in God but there is eternal damnation to gain if you don't believe in Him and He does exist, which he does. But at the end of the day everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So go ahead believe what u want. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge would believe in God.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You see, this is hat I find annoying. You have basically learn't about XY chromosones today probably or are currently learning it and you assume you know everything about it and now you have the bright idea to include it in everything that is moderatly related to it. You say that a person who has even an ounce of knowledge will believe in god. I have two words for you. Stephen Hawking. He has one of the worlds highest adult IQ's. So shut up. The fact is that no one has any knowledge, that is the truth so why don't you continue learning instead of trying proving something improvable and is honestly pointless.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 14, 2015
  • create my feed
  • edit my feed
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.