Does God exist? (67 Viewers)

[kaz1]

Amazingly accurate descriptions likening DNA to advanced software, processing power
And to think
We came out of nothing?

Yeah dude that's my perspective of human life but it's obviously more complicated than that.

Religious people always say that we cannot come out of nothing and god must of created the big bang. Then you have to ask yourself who created god? Religious people then say that god has always existed which I find completely ridiculous. Why not skip that step and just say that the cosmos has always existed and that it didn't need to be created from some god.

 

[nerdasdasd]

God could not have existed without cells, which was made from carbon.

 

[Sy123]

Yeah dude that's my perspective of human life but it's obviously more complicated than that.

Religious people always say that we cannot come out of nothing and god must of created the big bang. Then you have to ask yourself who created god? Religious people then say that god has always existed which I find completely ridiculous. Why not skip that step and just say that the cosmos has always existed and that it didn't need to be created from some god.

The, "Who created God?" question itself is a contradiction in terms, it is not a valid question and is the weakest 'argument' against the existence of God. God by definition (or at least the monotheistic Abrahamic definition) has God defined as uncreated, and uncaused. That is, to ask "Who created the Uncreated" is as valid as asking "What is north of the north pole", the question itself is not valid.

The most intelligent atheists never resorted to this petty argument (Richard Dawkins is intelligent but his ignorance allows this argument to be central to his book 'The God Delusion'). Bertrand Russel instead tried to argue that an infinite regress is possible in the natural and physical world. However advancements in science has showed that this cannot be the case (as well as the many arguments from philosophy that an infinite regress of past events is not possible).

 

[Sy123]

God could not have existed without cells, which was made from carbon.

Excuse me?

God is not a human being, God is not made of carbon, nor is He made of cells.

"[He is] Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing." (Surah Ash-Shura 42:11)

 

[Absolutezero]

The, "Who created God?" question itself is a contradiction in terms, it is not a valid question and is the weakest 'argument' against the existence of God. God by definition (or at least the monotheistic Abrahamic definition) has God defined as uncreated, and uncaused. That is, to ask "Who created the Uncreated" is as valid as asking "What is north of the north pole", the question itself is not valid.

The most intelligent atheists never resorted to this petty argument (Richard Dawkins is intelligent but his ignorance allows this argument to be central to his book 'The God Delusion'). Bertrand Russel instead tried to argue that an infinite regress is possible in the natural and physical world. However advancements in science has showed that this cannot be the case (as well as the many arguments from philosophy that an infinite regress of past events is not possible).

oh haii cosmological argument

 

[Absolutezero]

step 1: define everything to need a cause
step 2: define god to not need a cause (for some arbitrary reason, because hey, why not)
step 3: ????
step 4: god

 

[girlworld_club]

It is impossible to prove the existence of God without the concretion of faith. I myself am a Christian, and my strong belief can not be explained simply. There may not be any scientific evidence to prove his existence, but God delves far beyond the physical realm we know of. I have seen his wonders in my life, things or circumstances that have no logical explanation now do.

 

[Sy123]

oh haii cosmological argument

Nope, having an attribute of God being Uncreated is not something that strictly adheres to the argument but is an attribute of God that is present in all theology

step 1: define everything to need a cause
step 2: define god to not need a cause (for some arbitrary reason, because hey, why not)
step 3: ????
step 4: god

Lmao standard youtube atheist argument against it, who do you listen to, AmazingAtheist, thunderf00t?

The Cosmological argument says that what begins to exist has a cause, not "everything has a cause"

---

Regardless, the Cosmological argument is but one of the many inumerable ways to arrive at the existence of God.
The Argument by design has gained tremendous strength over the past years due to great developments in science and technology

 

[kaz1]

The, "Who created God?" question itself is a contradiction in terms, it is not a valid question and is the weakest 'argument' against the existence of God. God by definition (or at least the monotheistic Abrahamic definition) has God defined as uncreated, and uncaused. That is, to ask "Who created the Uncreated" is as valid as asking "What is north of the north pole", the question itself is not valid.

The most intelligent atheists never resorted to this petty argument (Richard Dawkins is intelligent but his ignorance allows this argument to be central to his book 'The God Delusion'). Bertrand Russel instead tried to argue that an infinite regress is possible in the natural and physical world. However advancements in science has showed that this cannot be the case (as well as the many arguments from philosophy that an infinite regress of past events is not possible).

Religious people say that everything that exists must have a creator... except god. God is a noun, a spiritual (or physical?) entity that actually exists to say that everything that exists has a creator and then make an exception because it doesn't fit well with your ancient text of fairy tales is stupid. North is a description of something to compare that with an entity like god is ridiculous. The assumption of god is baseless and only came about from fictional religious texts.

tl;dr

God has always existed.
Why?
because I said so and you cannot question it

 

[Sy123]

Religious people say that everything that exists must have a creator... except god. God is a noun, a spiritual (or physical?) entity that actually exists to say that everything that exists has a creator and then make an exception because it doesn't fit well with your ancient text of fairy tales is stupid. North is a description of something to compare that with an entity like god is ridiculous. The assumption of god is baseless and only came about from fictional religious texts.

tl;dr

God has always existed.
Why?
because I said so and you cannot question it

There is no "assumption of God", nor am I saying that everything has a creator (as dealt with above by Absolutzero's "rebuttal")
The use of the 'north' example was just an example of a logical absurdity, they are inherently the same contradiction with different words.

God has always existed since if God came into existence then that thing wouldn't be God

I don't see why its difficult to understand

 

[kaz1]

There is no "assumption of God", nor am I saying that everything has a creator (as dealt with above by Absolutzero's "rebuttal")
The use of the 'north' example was just an example of a logical absurdity, they are inherently the same contradiction with different words.

God has always existed since if God came into existence then that thing wouldn't be God

I don't see why its difficult to understand

The cosmos has always existed why do you need a god to create.

I dun understand why there must be a gawwd.

 

[Sy123]

What about the Fine Tuned universe?

Multi-verses silly

Evidence of multiverses?

Philosophy which pre-assumes no God

 

[Sy123]

The cosmos has always existed why do you need a god to create.

I dun understand why there must be a gawwd.

But science and philosophy says that the cosmos hasn't always existed

What about the unmoved mover?
What about the start of the universe?
What about entropy?
What about the absurdity of an infinite regress of past events?

 

[kaz1]

It is impossible to prove the existence of God without the concretion of faith. I myself am a Christian, and my strong belief can not be explained simply. There may not be any scientific evidence to prove his existence, but God delves far beyond the physical realm we know of. I have seen his wonders in my life, things or circumstances that have no logical explanation now do.

Why is your Christian god right?

Why not Zeus?
Why not Thor?
Why not Allah?
Why not Krishna?

 

[kaz1]

But science and philosophy says that the cosmos hasn't always existed

What about the unmoved mover?
What about the start of the universe?
What about entropy?
What about the absurdity of an infinite regress of past events?

By cosmos I mean the physical space where everything is. With the Big Bang minds far greater than mine are working on figuring out what happened using conventional scientific methods, not supernatural absurdities. I don't know what caused the big bang but it is ridiculous to fill my void of knowledge with "gawd dunnit" because ancient texts with no scientific credibility at all.

 

[Sy123]

Why is your Christian god right?

Why not Zeus?
Why not Thor?
Why not Allah?
Why not Krishna?

Polytheism is absurd since it creates a whole host of logical problems so you can cross off Zeus and Thor.
Hinduism is in reality a monotheistic faith that has been distorted over the centuries (strong evidence of monotheism can be found in the very Vedas)

Whether the concept God is called God, Allah, Krishna or whoever, as long as the names cover the essential attributes of God (All-Knowing, All-Powerful and so on) then they are all the same name for the same God.

Indeed it is our human innate disposition to believe in a One Powerful God [here] and [here]
So it is not suprising that so many different names have erupted over history

"And for every nation is a messenger. So when their messenger comes, it will be judged between them in justice, and they will not be wronged" (Surah Yunus 10:47)

 

[Sy123]

By cosmos I mean the physical space where everything is. With the Big Bang minds far greater than mine are working on figuring out what happened using conventional scientific methods, not supernatural absurdities. I don't know what caused the big bang but it is ridiculous to fill my void of knowledge with "gawd dunnit" because ancient texts with no scientific credibility at all.

I know what you meant by Cosmos. You say you don't know what caused the Big Bang but the reality is that nobody knows any purely naturalistic explanation.

Regardless of whatever the cosmologists say about the Big Bang is fine, I don't rest my faith on the concept, there are plenty of philosophical and direct scientific explanations (entropy) to infer that the universe began.

 

[Absolutezero]

Nope, having an attribute of God being Uncreated is not something that strictly adheres to the argument but is an attribute of God that is present in all theology



Lmao standard youtube atheist argument against it, who do you listen to, AmazingAtheist, thunderf00t?

The Cosmological argument says that what begins to exist has a cause, not "everything has a cause"

---

Regardless, the Cosmological argument is but one of the many inumerable ways to arrive at the existence of God.
The Argument by design has gained tremendous strength over the past years due to great developments in science and technology

oh please, argument by design has become popularised in recent years by apologetics, but the arguments are just as weak as they've ever been.

 

[Sy123]

oh please, argument by design has become popularised in recent years by apologetics, but the arguments are just as weak as they've ever been.

Well merely looking at a 'simple' cell (observable science), the apparent fact is that as kaz1 described it, can be likened to software and processing.
Even if you were to allow macro-evolution the fact of the matter is, the cell (not evolved) is still incredibly complex and supports the argument by design. This was not known long ago, Darwin thought the cell was incredibly simple but observable science tells us something different.

And we can also include advancements in physics, cosmology, biology and so on.

"Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding." (Surah Ali Imran 3:190)

 

[Absolutezero]

Well merely looking at a 'simple' cell (observable science), the apparent fact is that as kaz1 described it, can be likened to software and processing.
Even if you were to allow macro-evolution the fact of the matter is, the cell (not evolved) is still incredibly complex and supports the argument by design. This was not known long ago, Darwin thought the cell was incredibly simple but observable science tells us something different.

And we can also include advancements in physics, cosmology, biology and so on.

"Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding." (Surah Ali Imran 3:190)

your irreducibly complex design is not irreducibly complex