is there a god?

[Carrie]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 19 2005, 08:56 PM']how do you plea?
[right][snapback]650309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Guilty

[quote]Do you think that "I believe in God because God believes in me" is gonna be a very strong case[/quote]

The strongest ever!

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Jul 19 2005, 07:00 PM']Guilty
The strongest ever!
[right][snapback]650313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Did you know that 100% of the jurors in my courtroom are atheist? How do you plan on living after all of this? The law states that misconduct is punishable by death........i fear for your life carrie.

Edited July 20, 2005 by infinitelord1

[Carrie]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 19 2005, 09:13 PM']Did you know that 100% of the jurors in my courtroom are atheist? How do you plan on living after all of this? The law states that misconduct is punishable by death........i fear for your life carrie.
[right][snapback]650329[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's all good.

Atheist jurors don't scare me dear.

I'd willingly die for my faith.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='infinitelord1']you are saying that "in your mind" theist arguements fail.........so to you that is proof that there is no god.[/quote]

No, no.. I didn't mean that as a proof. Just a justification not to believe.

[infinitelord1]

justification is the same thing as reason in my book. There is nothing that suggests that there is no creator........let alone justifies or reasons.

I wonder if mel has seen this yet......i enjoy slandering his belief system. Im pretty sure he likes slandering mine too. If he was in on this.....things would be that much more interesting.

Hey, semalsia..........will go out with me? LOL.

Edited July 20, 2005 by infinitelord1

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I'm a firm believer in the "First Cause" arguement. It's impervious. I just read a "refutation" of it and laughed at it.

[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm[/url]

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 19 2005, 07:29 PM']justification is the same thing as reason in my book. There is nothing that suggests that there is no creator........let alone justifies or reasons.

I wonder if mel has seen this yet......i enjoy slandering his belief system. Im pretty sure he likes slandering mine too. If he was in on this.....things would be that much more interesting.

Hey, semalsia..........will go out with me? LOL.
[right][snapback]650347[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I have seen this, yes, and I recall countless circles of argumentation we have participated in. My 2cents is this. The main argument I see often is out of complexity. Life is complex, we cannot explain why its so complex, so God did it. This is the good ole 'God of the gaps' argument. To me, I cannot be convinced on those arguments, many people can. Another argument is the one pertaining to God being the first uncaused caused. Kalam, Aquinas. Now if you believe that the big bang theory is concrete, than you can ascribe to this. Or you can take the infinite regress stance(multiverse) then there requires absolutely no first cause. Those are the two main arguments that I have seen. There are a number of others, like the 'problem with evil' , 'objective morality', and a bunch more that really dont do much for me.

People want to make sense of the world, and christianity and other religions do help make alot of sense of the world. I will not deny that. Its very coherent for people to grasp. Atheism doesn't explain much. Atheism is just a stance on no belief, it doesnt say squat on what you do believe. Moreover, it doesn't have answers for how we got here, how the universe is, or why it works the way it does. People do not find that acceptable. I see alot of arguments against atheism simply on the fact that since theism can account for more by way of having some sort of explanation, than its better to believe. I think that is mainly due to people no liking to have questions left unanswered.

To me , being a skeptic, you have to keep an open mind. I've listened to great philosophers from atheist like Dawkins, Carrier to theist like Plantinga, Craig. I find both sides compelling really.

[reelguy227]

I believe in God ,because the big bang doesnt really show how the universe got created . It claims that it just started with a big bang ,where did that big bang come from if there was nothing here to start that explosion ? This implies a creator ,God .

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jul 19 2005, 08:03 PM']I have seen this, yes, and I recall countless circles of argumentation we have participated in.  My 2cents is this.  The main argument I see often is out of complexity. Life is complex, we cannot explain why its so complex, so God did it. This is the good ole 'God of the gaps' argument.  To me, I cannot be convinced on those arguments, many people can.  Another argument is the one pertaining to God being the first uncaused caused. Kalam, Aquinas. Now if you believe that the big bang theory is concrete, than you can ascribe to this. Or you can take the infinite regress stance(multiverse)  then there requires absolutely no first cause. Those are the two main arguments that I have seen.  There are a number of others, like the 'problem with evil' , 'objective morality',  and a bunch more that really dont do much for me. 

People want to make sense of the world, and christianity and other religions do help make alot of sense of the world. I will not deny that.  Its very coherent for people to grasp. Atheism doesn't explain much. Atheism is just a stance on no belief, it doesnt say squat on what you do believe.  Moreover, it doesn't have answers for how we got here, how the universe is, or why it works the way it does. People do not find that acceptable. I see alot of arguments against atheism simply on the fact that since theism can account for more by way of having some sort of explanation, than its better to believe. I think that is mainly due to people no liking to have questions left unanswered. 

To me , being a skeptic, you have to keep an open mind.  I've listened to great philosophers from atheist like Dawkins, Carrier to theist like Plantinga, Craig. I find both sides compelling really.
[right][snapback]650385[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i see this as a very valid opinion on the matter........shouldnt you be claiming agnostic?

[infinitelord1]

i really wish i could find fallicy in your arguement mel, but i cant. I think what skeptics are really looking for is proof. I must admit.......i am a skeptic also, but i tend to stray more towards the belief in god. I think it is a 51/49 probability. The sad thing is we will never have proof of a god existing. So all that search for proof is really pointless. Let us not forget though that we will never have proof that there is no god. So what are we left with? Faith. To be honest, i never cared about whether there was a god or not until i started suffering from SSA. Your first thought might be "this guy wont accept the fact the he is gay". Well, you are correct. I wont accept it. Honestly, i tried to.......but something inside or outside (I dont know)of me wouldnt let me. The more and more i tried to accept it.....the worse i felt. So, i started to look for an answer. Just like you said mel, people look for answers and ultimately they end up with the belief in god. It may have been easier for them to accept rather than not having an answer at all. I cant say i have had a whole lot of changes in myself when it comes down to god. Although, i must note that there have been some changes.......as far as SSA goes it is not as intense. Which i really like that. I really dont know what else to say.

Edited July 20, 2005 by infinitelord1

[infinitelord1]

how do you explain those who have claimed to meet god? What about the miracle at fatima, spain in 1917? Do you simply just not believe in this? If so, then i hope you have good reason. I hope you dont 'believe in aliens' and not this.........that could be a whole new thread but lets not focus on aliens.

Edited July 20, 2005 by infinitelord1

[jmjtina]

To those who don't believe in God, what is your definition of good and evil? Do they exisist to you? And if they do, are they subjective?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jul 19 2005, 09:03 PM']Or you can take the infinite regress stance(multiverse)  then there requires absolutely no first cause.
[right][snapback]650385[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But where does the first universe come from?

[Fidei Defensor]

I tend to look also at proof here among us, such as real exorcisms, Euchristic miracles, other miracles. You try telling an exorcist that has experienced a real one, that God doesnt exist, and he will laugh in your face.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Semalsia'][quote name='infinitelord1']you are saying that "in your mind" theist arguements fail.........so to you that is proof that there is no god.[/quote]

No, no.. I didn't mean that as a proof. Just a justification not to believe.
[/quote]

Meaning that it's not a justification for thinking there is no god, but a justification for not being a theist.

[quote name='Melchisedec']Another argument is the one pertaining to God being the first uncaused caused.[/quote]

Which is based on the assumption of causality. That things need to be caused.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 20 2005, 08:26 AM']Which is based on the assumption of causality. That things need to be caused.
[right][snapback]650822[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Exactly, and the presupposition that the cause must be God. Yet God is not subject to the same line of reason for requiring a cause.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 19 2005, 10:31 PM']But where does the first universe come from?
[right][snapback]650562[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It doesn't come from anything, anymore than God comes from anything. It just has always existed.

[Brother Adam]

logic tells us that matter itself must have a source.

But really now, who cares? There are better things to do in life. Like read Harry Potter.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jul 20 2005, 09:43 AM']It doesn't come from anything, anymore than God comes from anything.  It just has always existed.
[right][snapback]650880[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Except modern science has dismissed the notion that it has always existed. Particularly since the universe appears to be expanding, pointing to a begining point. And if it had one, that implies something to begin it.

We place God there in light of other revelation on his part.

[ergosum]

FYI: Peter Kreeft, from Boston College - i think, compiles a decent list of arguments that supposedly "prove" the existence of God. The book is titled "Handbook of Christian Apologetics". It's really an interesting read, though if you are a tenacious and reasoned thinker, you will find easy flaws in all that's in that book.

Anyways, so many posts on here are just so obviously weak that I'm not going to take the trouble to respond to them individually. I'll point out a few things here.

"Intelligent design" is NOT a scientific theory.

Some kind of "intelligent design" claimed to be a property of this Universe is clearly an assumption - and a very shaky assumption.

Assuming that there is always a sequence of causes, and that the effects are always dependant upon the causes, and that one can identify causes and effects or which one is the cause and which one is the effect, are all false beliefs that have already been discarded by science.

Anselm's Ontological Argument is an insidious farce. I'm not going to waste my time explaining myself. I have more than elaborately clarified this issue on my blog site ergosum.blogspot.

To claim that faith is a "firmer" ground to base one's beliefs than reason is, is to engage in an irrational fallacy of the stolen concept.
In order to engage in precise logic, you must fully understand and define your concepts. Without having done that, you cannot build a rational and logical argument.

Why should 2+2=4? Not because we "believe" or have "faith" that it is so. But because we can demonstrate it by proof of logic and reason. Assume we cannot trust our power of reason and logic. So, let's use the axioms of existence and Identification to come to the conclusion that 2+2=4.
We understand that inorder to contemplate on the issue of 2+2=4, we have already assumed our perception of what those numbers mean. In other words, we know that a 2 is not any other number but a 2 and a 4 is not any other number but a 4. Thus, we have engaged in identification.
However, identification does not come without existence.
Thus, we understand that something exists which we have now identified. However, in order to identify one matter of existence, we need to understand all that which that matter is NOT, and all that exists which this matter is NOT.
Thus, we know that 2 is not a 1 or a 3 or anything else. But now, we also understand that we know what a 1 is, or what a 3 is.
Thus, knowing that a single element, or a single unit, or an individual entity, or a 1 exists, we can also say that "since we know 1 exists, and we also just identified the existence of a 2" we can say that a single unit and another single unit when contemplated together synonymously manifests the property of that which we have just identified as 2.
We can now proceed similarly to further prove that 2+2=4.

Now, Reason ofcourse is the ONLY ONE AND ONLY competent means to gaining and attaining and integrating knowledge that we HUMANS possess. Arriving at any conclusion by Reason gives us the capacity to check our premises and our conclusions and identify any errors we may have mistakenly assumed as real or true.
Remember: Logic CANNOT have any contradictions. And contradictions DO NOT EXIST at all in this real world. There is NO circle with FOUR corners. That is a contradiction.
THis cannot be a pen and a book at the same time. That is a contradiction.
Since, contradictions have NO reality and NO existence, pure logic and reason SHOULD reflect the non-contradictory nature of reality and existence. (The implications for a "perfectly logical or intelligent Being" is immense, and should provide enough proof for the tenacious thinker to arrive at the Atheist conclusion).

Now, someone here said "Faith, by definition, begs no questions because it desires no proof, it needs no proof."
That is fully true.
And therefore, on faith I can believe in anything. I can believe in Batman. Or if I'm feeling whimsy enough, I can believe in Batman and Superman at the same time.
Faith gives you NO CAPACITY to check ANY of your premises and contemplate your errors because YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT ERRORS you may have made. You are REQUIRED to believe things on FAITH because "faith, by definition,... desires no proof, it needs no proof" to believe in anything... even Batman!

Thus, the fallacy of Stolen Concept? You cannot claim faith as a "firmer" foundation to attaining knowledge than Reason is by openly admitting how ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be accepted as "knowledge" without any need for justification, reason, proof, or logic. Such is your fallacy: you accept anything and everything on your whimsical, fuzzy feelings of the day. On faith. And you claim that it must be TRUE because it makes you feel good and if's based on faith!

Btw, if you didn't guess by now. I am an Atheist. My blog site is ergosum at blogspot.com that discusses these and many other issues of faith, logic, reason, sex, love, and relationships!