Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josie_7)
    I'm not going to get into a vicious debate - as I've said, everybody has a choice as to what they will believe and I'm not forcing you into anything; it's your decision, because truth is truth whether we like it or not.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Vicious....debate?!? I'm asking you to exhibit novice level critical thinking and the common sense you were born with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    How about the Greeks and Romans, why are their Gods not real?

    And the bold part, another circle jerk.
    I can't explain why they aren't real, they were/are called legends and mythology - stories passed down generations. As I've said, everyone has to choose whether they will follow the True God; having arguments is pointless, it doesn't usually get anywhere. I'm not forcing anyone to believe, but at least think on it and consider it carefully.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    No, logical arguments use the best of modern science. If the science were to change, perhaps the arguments would to. It's all about working to the best of our knowledge.

    As for properties of God - they aren't just assumptions, they're logical deductions. If God existed without the universe, God exists timelessly and spacelessly, because time and space are properties of the universe and nothing more. This point is agreed upon by the majority of contemporary cosmologists.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So you admit to twisting half knowledge in order to fit your biased picture of the universe?

    Why are time and space limited to the universe? Is that a proven fact? Is our universe the only universe in existence? These are all things we don't know, and yet you present them as fact and then concoct some sort of "argument" why they imply the existence of God.

    I mean you start "if God existed" - well he doesn't. You can't use that which you want to prove in the proof itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Vicious....debate?!? I'm asking you to exhibit novice level critical thinking and the common sense you were born with.
    I say that because this is turning into some kind of argument, and I don't want to get into debates. I'm thinking logically; it just doesn't make sense for the universe to one day decide it wants to form the planets and all living organisms, without an operator behind it all. I think it takes more faith to believe we randomly appeared here than to believe a Creator made all things.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josie_7)
    I can't explain why they aren't real, they were/are called legends and mythology - stories passed down generations. As I've said, everyone has to choose whether they will follow the True God; having arguments is pointless, it doesn't usually get anywhere. I'm not forcing anyone to believe, but at least think on it and consider it carefully.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So their Gods are "stories passed down generations" but yours isn't because it's the "True God"?

    Do you know how arrogant and yet naive that is?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever. But thanks for proving again my point that belief in God is self-perpetuating. If you start out with the belief, then every argument makes it look like he exist. It's a circle jerk argument.

    When did he tell people who he is? I never heard him say anything...

    There is no choice to make other than to say, "I won't believe in a fairy tale written 2000 years ago".

    God has revealed Himself to us through His Word over many years and continues to do so today - He's a living God. It's up to you what you'll believe and whether you'll decide to trust in Him, so you can't say you weren't told.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    So their Gods are "stories passed down generations" but yours isn't because it's the "True God"?

    Do you know how arrogant and yet naive that is?
    I'm not tryna be arrogant or naive, but God is alive today, and is the same yesterday, today and forever. He isn't made up, He is real.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josie_7)

    God has revealed Himself to us through His Word over many years and continues to do so today - He's a living God. It's up to you what you'll believe and whether you'll decide to trust in Him, so you can't say you weren't told.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by Josie_7)
    I'm not tryna be arrogant or naive, but God is alive today, and is the same yesterday, today and forever. He isn't made up, He is real.Posted from TSR Mobile
    People who believe in Alien conspiracies are labelled fruitcakes and yet religious people are just that, religious. They are accepted. Makes no sense.

    What is His Word?

    I have never heard God speak or do anything. And no, mentioning every single thing on this Earth that we can't explain (like speaking in tongues) is not "His Word" or "His Work".

    How is he "real"? I have never seen anything real about him.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    So you admit to twisting half knowledge in order to fit your biased picture of the universe?

    Why are time and space limited to the universe? Is that a proven fact? Is our universe the only universe in existence? These are all things we don't know, and yet you present them as fact and then concoct some sort of "argument" why they imply the existence of God.

    I mean you start "if God existed" - well he doesn't. You can't use that which you want to prove in the proof itself.
    I am doing no 'twisting' whatsoever. As I say, and you fail to comprehend, these arguments use the best that contemporary cosmology can give us. If the evidence changes, then I freely admit that the arguments could potentially be falsified. But this has not yet happened, and given the scientific evidence regarding fine tuning that has proved so useful to theists, it looks unlikely that it will.

    Your reposte is philosophically unsound in the sense that if it were used by everyone it would be impossible to ever use evidence in any discussion ever again for fear of better evidence potentially turning up in the future.

    I was treating God as a hypothetical by using 'if', the precise opposite of assuming his existence as you suggest I am doing.

    Besides, a further incorrect assumption of yours is that belief in God is based solely on these arguments. People have all sorts of reasons for theism, it's just a nice addition that contemporary science backs it up as well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josie_7)
    I say that because this is turning into some kind of argument, and I don't want to get into debates. I'm thinking logically; it just doesn't make sense for the universe to one day decide it wants to form the planets and all living organisms, without an operator behind it all. I think it takes more faith to believe we randomly appeared here than to believe a Creator made all things.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Another important point right there; there was no 'one day' before the beginning of the universe. The universe is everything that exists in TIME and SPACE. It did not randomly come about after a time of nothing happening. There was nothing before it.

    'Conditions' before time and space are hard to imagine. That doesn't mean we can leap to the most logical answer and call it God. In physical science, under extreme conditions the laws of nature are different to what we expect or what our common sense can extrapolate from the laws we know to hold under normal conditions. For example, masses at speed approaching that of light become infinitely massive. Incredibly small things behave entirely different to the ways in which large every day objects behave.

    I think it's unlikely therefore that the universe was created in the same way that everyday things are created, or has purpose in the same way that every day things are manufactured or have adapted to have 'purpose'. There is no human logic that can assume the origins of the universe, we must experiment and observe it. Do not be too hard on yourself that you do not know the reasons for the genesis of the universe and don't settle for assuming fairy take because of it.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    This is flatly untrue. Over the last 100 years there has been a resurgence in philosophical arguments for God's existence. This has been entirely brought about by new discoveries in science providing evidence for the theist's cause. (All the instances of fine tuning being uncovered all the time, the Big Bang theory, thermodynamics etc.)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What is flatly untrue in what I said? Please quote my fallacy. Actually it's quite the other way around, new discoveries in science allows natural phenomena to be described by deterministic and predictable processes, rendering the need for divine intervention redundant in the existence of anything. Humans used to believe that dieseases and cures were the result of divine intervention, now we know that there is no need for such a deity to describe this, when someone gets ill or gets better we can explain why. The same goes with the weather, motion of celestial bodies, the existence of life etc. The last 100 years has been nothing but blow after blow for the evidence of God, as has been the last 400 years.

    If you feel that I am wrong in saying this, feel free to provide evidence against me, clearly outlining any philosophical and non-cyclical arguments for a Gods existence as a result of a scienctific discovery in the past 100 years.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    People who believe in Alien conspiracies are labelled fruitcakes and yet religious people are just that, religious. They are accepted. Makes no sense.

    What is His Word?

    I have never heard God speak or do anything. And no, mentioning every single thing on this Earth that we can't explain (like speaking in tongues) is not "His Word" or "His Work".

    How is he "real"? I have never seen anything real about him.
    Have you heard a congregation speak in toungues? I have. It's so obviously jibberish. It's amazing in a way.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I am doing no 'twisting' whatsoever. As I say, and you fail to comprehend, these arguments use the best that contemporary cosmology can give us. If the evidence changes, then I freely admit that the arguments could potentially be falsified. But this has not yet happened, and given the scientific evidence regarding fine tuning that has proved so useful to theists, it looks unlikely that it will.

    Your reposte is philosophically unsound in the sense that if it were used by everyone it would be impossible to ever use evidence in any discussion ever again for fear of better evidence potentially turning up in the future.

    I was treating God as a hypothetical by using 'if', the precise opposite of assuming his existence as you suggest I am doing.

    Besides, a further incorrect assumption of yours is that belief in God is based solely on these arguments. People have all sorts of reasons for theism, it's just a nice addition that contemporary science backs it up as well.
    It does not...there is a possibility that the universe had a beginning. And from then onwards, the argument goes that a "creator" must exist to have caused the beginning of the universe. That is not science backing it up. That is you looking at the current state of knowledge and spinning a story. Theists have done this for two millennia now. And somehow they still think that's ok. At what point is the so-called word of God nothing but a joke? Every time a new flaw was discovered, the answer was, well of course this was just metaphoric. It's as if a criminal got to change his excuses every time the police found new evidence.

    And you fail to admit that there is no relationship between this "creator" and your God. Because even if you are right, and there is a "creator" of the universe, nothing in that argument suggests this "creator" is anything like the benevolent God people put their faith in.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Have you heard a congregation speak in toungues? I have. It's so obviously jibberish. It's amazing in a way.
    Indeed. Much like Jesus probably did know some remedies and helped a few people, but by the time the story had been told 10 times, he had brought people back from the dead and made wine out of water.

    It's crazy how some people could take folklore and create an ideology so powerful that it could bind billions even two millennia later.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    It does not...there is a possibility that the universe had a beginning. And from then onwards, the argument goes that a "creator" must exist to have caused the beginning of the universe. That is not science backing it up. That is you looking at the current state of knowledge and spinning a story.

    And you fail to admit that there is no relationship between this "creator" and your God. Because even if you are right, and there is a "creator" of the universe, nothing in that argument suggests this "creator" is anything like the benevolent God people put their faith in.
    Answers to the cliched points can be found here:

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-t...opic-principle

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-de...gical-argument
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    William Lane Craig

    Should have known you are nothing more than a rehasher of this old drag.

    There are no people who accept the Kalam argument other than theists. It's quite cute really. You desperately try to prove your fairy tale by adhering to the methods rational scientists use*, you concoct a story and think you have finally done it, and yet in the end the only people who fall for it, are those that had blind faith to begin with.

    http://counterapologist.blogspot.co....finitions.html

    *the link goes as far as saying he "perverts science"
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    IEvery time a new flaw was discovered, the answer was, well of course this was just metaphoric.
    Please name one example of this. Evolution? Nope. St. Augustine was already teaching that Genesis and the passages relating to the creation of humanity were not to be taken literally, in the 4th century. That's a good 1500 years prior to Darwin. In other words, not a retreat caused by science.


    (Original post by yudothis)
    And you fail to admit that there is no relationship between this "creator" and your God.
    Every logical argument using science links the creator to God. Either you disprove the premises of the arguments or you accept that your point just shows your ingorance of the arguments in question.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Please name one example of this. Evolution? Nope. St. Augustine was already teaching that Genesis and the passages relating to the creation of humanity were not to be taken literally, in the 4th century. That's a good 1500 years prior to Darwin. In other words, not a retreat caused by science.




    Every logical argument using science links the creator to God. Either you disprove the premises of the arguments or you accept that your point just shows your ingorance of the arguments in question.
    And yet the Bible is still wrong. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the whole 7 day thing was total ********. He, like you are now, just wanted to get ahead of it. It's standard debate tactic, say the arguments the opposition will use yourself, making it seem like they aren't arguments at all.

    loooooool, just google him. he was even more wrong, not 6 days but in an instant according to him. Nothing to do with evolution. Seems like you couldn't have chosen a worse example.

    What? You call me ignorant and you have completely failed to see the point I made - even if your creator exists a la Kalam, that creator has no relationship to the biblical God. Why are you lying? I thought you aren't supposed to lie?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    And yet the Bible is still wrong. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the whole 7 day thing was total ********. He, like you are now, just wanted to get ahead of it. It's standard debate tactic, say the arguments the opposition will use yourself, making it seem like they aren't arguments at all.

    What? You call me ignorant and you have completely failed to see the point I made - even if your creator exists a la Kalam, that creator has no relationship to the biblical God. Why are you lying? I thought you aren't supposed to lie?
    There are perfectly good justifications for the seven day creation story. For example, it is much easier for allowing people (who at that time were, on average, less well educated) to understand the base concepts which the chapter wishes to convey, namely that God is the creator, and originator of all things. I would also add that for most of human history, the intellectuals, such as Plato or whoever, thought that the universe and world were eternal. It was only the Abrahamic people who considered the universe to have had a beginning. Who would have thought that 4000 years later science would prove them right?

    The Kalam argument (whether it is valid is irrelevant to this point), leads to a timeless, spaceless, unimaginably intelligent andd powerful unembodied mind. Admittedly, it doesn't say 'this is the Abrahamic God!', but these are all properties traditionally associated with God, how much more could you possibly want? This conclusion is extremely valuable to all theism - indeed, it would validate theism. So it is incorrect, or at the least irrelevant to your cause, to shout about it has 'no relationship to the Biblical God'.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    There are perfectly good justifications for the seven day creation story. For example, it is much easier for allowing people (who at that time were, on average, less well educated) to understand the base concepts which the chapter wishes to convey, namely that God is the creator, and originator of all things. I would also add that for most of human history, the intellectuals, such as Plato or whoever, thought that the universe and world were eternal. It was only the Abrahamic people who considered the universe to have had a beginning. Who would have thought that 4000 years later science would prove them right?

    The Kalam argument (whether it is valid is irrelevant to this point), leads to a timeless, spaceless, unimaginably intelligent andd powerful unembodied mind. Admittedly, it doesn't say 'this is the Abrahamic God!', but these are all properties traditionally associated with, how much more could you possibly want? This conclusion is extremely valuable to all theism - indeed, it would validate theism. So it is incorrect, or at the least irrelevant for your cause, to shout about it has 'no relationship to the Biblical God'.
    Or because the people who wrote the book themselves had no clue? Yes, very much so. Thanks for proving me right. And yes, they thought that, but only because it fits into their God narrative. Ask 100 economists, one of them is likely to end up actually being correct.

    What about benevolence? What about even a shred of evidence that he cares about humans? All it says is that it created the universe. That is it. Everything else is make belief. And no, it would suggest a being exist. But 1. the argument is bs (read the link, it's a nice rebuttal, easy to understand) and 2. that being is not "God". You talk about properties? Well species of dogs share many properties and yet a poodle is not doberman...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: September 12, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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