Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Sy123]

How I determined that there is one god and that mohammed is his prophet, using the utmost scientific and rational induction;

> Born into islamic family
> Indoctrinated that the islamic religion is true
> Follow standard scientific method; Determine outcome and then search for the evidence
> Visit the most islamic websites for all my information
> shitpost spammed this information on internet forums

Please point to the argument(s) you contend with, and illustrate which premise is false, giving evidences

Otherwise your post has no use

 

[RealiseNothing]

This is actually pretty interesting.

 

[Graney]

Alright, f the actual quote function, it is clunky, ctrl + B 4lyf, we all know who is being quoted here

For one, Judaism is a religion one cannot convert to

Incorrect

So will you be able to argue against the 17 variations of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and its forms, the moral argument, and various ontological arguments?

I probably cbf

Proof Number 1: The Occasionalist Argument

An agnostic can propose a lifeless transcendent cause indeed.

Basically true

But if the transcendent chose to shoot, it must have some sort of will, therefore it is this attribute that we call it as 'alive'

The occurence of an event alone does not imply intelligence, it's just a force, as seen in countless forces in nature. A 'transcendent' force may be random and unintelligent.

Proof Number 2: The Moral Argument

If morals are unrestrictedly subjective, then what is moral and immoral is up to the whim of beings who wish it to be so.

True

This means then that communal moral obligation does not exist, for the murderer, the rapist and so on, may have their own moral system in which they view themselves as being right.

On the contrary communal moral obligation very much exists under this framework. The communal group shares a set of morals amongst themselves that facilitate a perceived collective good, that is the function of morals. The group invents their morals to suit whatever their goals and values are.

Meaning that in all possible worlds, unjustified murder is wrong.

It's certain there have been communities in the past who were accepting of unjustified murder, but they won't self perpetuate for obvious reasons, morals are memetic and replicate or perish based on their usefulness, 'kill everyone' isn't likely to go viral as a meme.

Proof Number 3: The Teleological (Fine Tuning) Argument

The anthropic principle really covers this whole thing, but;

If you want to specify aliens, then clearly these aliens were designed, if they were given such intelligence to be able to design, and we would follow an infinite regress eventually to the greatest Designer. There is no escaping this fact.

lol at the inconsistent use of infinite regression as a criticism,

Says the author: 'infinite regression is a problem for your origin of the universe, but not for my "greatest designer", because he is transcendental (a magical woo word, that doesn't explain anything and throws reason out the window.)'.

Change 'transcendental' for 'magic' in any of the posts you've quoted, there's no difference.

Proof Number 4: The Kalaam Cosmological Argument

This post says something about renting hotels, and therefore god

Proof Number 5: The Argument from Contingency (The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument)

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external explanation.

I disagree, explain this: http://nofap2013.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/has-science-gone-too-far.jpg

Proof Number 6: The Modal Ontological Argument

1. It is possible I am a dog typing this.

2. If it is possible a typing dog exists, then a typing dog exists in some possible worlds

3. If a dog typing this exists in some possible worlds, then a dog typing this exists in all possible worlds

4. If a typing dog exists in all Possible worlds, then a typing dog exists in the Actual world

5. QED; I am a miniature schnauzer

 

[Feynman]

I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling.

But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet.

Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

 

[Sy123]

I was hoping for a meaningful response:

Alright, f the actual quote function, it is clunky, ctrl + B 4lyf, we all know who is being quoted here

For one, Judaism is a religion one cannot convert to

Incorrect

My bad there, I was operating under a misconception

So will you be able to argue against the 17 variations of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and its forms, the moral argument, and various ontological arguments?

I probably cbf

Completely understandable, but then you would have to concede that it is false that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Proof Number 1: The Occasionalist Argument

But if the transcendent chose to shoot, it must have some sort of will, therefore it is this attribute that we call it as 'alive'

The occurence of an event alone does not imply intelligence, it's just a force, as seen in countless forces in nature. A 'transcendent' force may be random and unintelligent.

Not at all, the creation of the universe is itself an active act, this act needs a will, and if something has a will, it is clearly alive.

By saying this cause is 'random' and 'unintelligent', you are still calling it a mind, albeit some sort of 'machine'. Though if you follow the proof through, we find that this cause is Necessary in being, meaning it must be Knowledgeable.

You have not tried to attack any of the premises either of this argument either



Proof Number 2: The Moral Argument

This means then that communal moral obligation does not exist, for the murderer, the rapist and so on, may have their own moral system in which they view themselves as being right.

On the contrary communal moral obligation very much exists under this framework. The communal group shares a set of morals amongst themselves that facilitate a perceived collective good, that is the function of morals. The group invents their morals to suit whatever their goals and values are.

Communal is not the right word to use, but we say moral obligation does not exist, since moral obligation still exists even if you are not part of this 'community'
The point being however, is that the view of the 'community' or the 'majority' is no more authoritative, than that of the murderer.

Meaning that in all possible worlds, unjustified murder is wrong.

It's certain there have been communities in the past who were accepting of unjustified murder, but they won't self perpetuate for obvious reasons, morals are memetic and replicate or perish based on their usefulness, 'kill everyone' isn't likely to go viral as a meme.

This completely misses the point. So be it, murder is not a good survival trait, but that says nothing about the morality of the situation.

Proof Number 3: The Teleological (Fine Tuning) Argument

The anthropic principle really covers this whole thing, but;

Anthropic principle has been discredited completely. It completely misses the point of the fine-tuning, whether or not it is true, that we only observe fine tuning, says nothing to its actual fine tuning, since we can easily conceive of universes where they are not fine-tuned.

It is equivalent to:

"You are facing a firing range of 50 expert marksman, you hear the command to fire, guns shooting, and silence. You are still alive. Unsuprised be you, you say 'well of course I'm still alive, since I'm still alive to see it!'"

If you want to specify aliens, then clearly these aliens were designed, if they were given such intelligence to be able to design, and we would follow an infinite regress eventually to the greatest Designer. There is no escaping this fact.

lol at the inconsistent use of infinite regression as a criticism,

Says the author: 'infinite regression is a problem for your origin of the universe, but not for my "greatest designer", because he is transcendental (a magical woo word, that doesn't explain anything and throws reason out the window.)'.

Change 'transcendental' for 'magic' in any of the posts you've quoted, there's no difference.

Transcendental simply means beyond space and time, nothing magical about it, its more magical to assume that our universe had popped into being uncaused and fine tuned, to then brush it off and say 'lol anthropic'

Moreover being transcendental is not the only condition to the infinite regress, clearly.

To terminate an infinite regress, the being terminating it must be un-caused, thus, eternal, thus necessary in nature.

Not mere transcendence. Natural numbers are transcendent in a way, but they have no causal power.

Proof Number 4: The Kalaam Cosmological Argument

This post says something about renting hotels, and therefore god

No, the Hilbert's Hotel analogy is to show that the existence of an actual infinite in the physical world is ridiculous, which would then be a philosophical argument against the pre-eternity of the universe.

Proof Number 6: The Modal Ontological Argument

1. It is possible I am a dog typing this.

2. If it is possible a typing dog exists, then a typing dog exists in some possible worlds

3. If a dog typing this exists in some possible worlds, then a dog typing this exists in all possible worlds

4. If a typing dog exists in all Possible worlds, then a typing dog exists in the Actual world

5. QED; I am a miniature schnauzer

You seem to misunderstand why the argument works for God, it is because God is Necessary in nature.

Whether you are a dog is contingent, it is true in some conceivable world, but not in others, so your parody argument fails in premise 3.

 

[Sy123]

I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling.

But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet.

Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

I open a fortune cookie it says "The Earth is round"

Do I conclude, "Oh, the statement in this fortune cookie must be false because this information comes from a fortune cookie"?
Of course not.

Your point about the origins of religion completely sidesteps the issue at hand, it explains nothing.

What if I decide to talk about how atheism allows people to absolve people of responsibility?

"Oh well, a lot of atheists become atheists because they don't want to feel a responsibility. It is quite clear that atheism provides comfort" etc etc.

Your post is useless as a refutation if you stand by such illogical arguments, please refer to the premises and arguments at hand, and provide a response to them.

 

[Spiritual Being]

im 10% body fat, defined and vascular abs and body and I'm eating 5000 calories a day of pure junk

but I prayed to God to keep lowering my body fat and he did

therefore God exists

 

[Spiritual Being]

Please God, help me state rank Accounting for Business Decisions A.

 

[Crobat]

Please God, help me state rank Accounting for Business Decisions A.

dw everyone gets a HD in Acct A and Eco 1... if you don't... well...

 

[Spiritual Being]

dw everyone gets a HD in Acct A and Eco 1... if you don't... well...

^^^

proof of god's existence

zyzz was actually a demigod and we can prove that he existed

therefore god exists to produce the demigod of zyzz then to demand him as a personal trainer in heaven hehe

nah, exam was good!! pretty happy esp with 1 night cram lol

 

[Spiritual Being]

How I determined that there is one god and that mohammed is his prophet, using the utmost scientific and rational induction;

> Born into islamic family
> Indoctrinated that the islamic religion is true
> Follow standard scientific method; Determine outcome and then search for the evidence
> Visit the most islamic websites for all my information
> shitpost spammed this information on internet forums

Simply the product of aristrocracy and intellectual brilliance. Amazing point.

 

[Spiritual Being]

I can prove to you all that god exists

but only some of you will have the logic to understand it or have the ability to disregard what you've been thinking for your entire life

pretty much why sy123 can never get anywhere with explaining anything

 

[Crobat]

^^^

proof of god's existence

zyzz was actually a demigod and we can prove that he existed

therefore god exists to produce the demigod of zyzz then to demand him as a personal trainer in heaven hehe

nah, exam was good!! pretty happy esp with 1 night cram lol

dude acct b at 6pm cbf

3 hour exam cbf hard

 

[Spiritual Being]

dude acct b at 6pm cbf

3 hour exam cbf hard

you'll kill it

stay positive and think of the 12 hour sleeps you'll get after this shitty examination period (dis motivates me I swear)

 

[hawkrider]

I can prove to you all that god exists

but only some of you will have the logic to understand it or have the ability to disregard what you've been thinking for your entire life

pretty much why sy123 can never get anywhere with explaining anything

I'm happy to hear it.

 

[Spiritual Being]

I'm happy to hear it.

just look at zyzz

demigod

needed a creator for that level of godliness incarnate

look at me, I pray to god before exams and get 90 without studying

proof god exists



I'll do it tomorrow or the day after when I'm free of exams there's actually legit scientific reasons that all the kids on here didn't know what to respond with

but honestly, it's just like sy123, he provides evidence and nobody actually refutes it but just makes some bs statement to undermine everything he said, so it's always quite pointless

 

[WeaselPowa]

I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling.

But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet.

Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

Um.

 

[kaz1]

Please God, help me state rank Accounting for Business Decisions A.

god will help you in the test but not the poor starving children in Africa

 

[Sy123]

god will help you in the test but not the poor starving children in Africa

Except we believe that such people with bad circumstances in their life will be recompensed in the here-after for their suffering

Also according to you and other people with disgusting naturalistic beliefs, believe that such poor children are part of natural selection, and that is simply how it is.
Also the people oppressing those poor children have literally no objective difference to someone giving charity to the poor.

They are the same objectively since you foolishly deny objective morality.

But since you are so keen on taking moral high-ground, let me show you how foolish such a position is.

---------------------------------------

One way to show that naturalists cannot believe in moral obligation is showing that a belief in naturalism implies a belief in hard determinism.

That is, everything we do has been determined at the start of the universe, and when I say determined, I don't mean that Someone knows what happens, but rather
you have absolutely no choice in matters, what you do in 6 years is completely determined, you have no choice.


Take the following logical argument:

1. All forms of matter must obey the physical laws of the universe.

2. On naturalism, the actions of humans are derived from forms of matter, only.

3. Therefore, the actions of human beings must obey the physical laws of the universe.

4. The physical laws of the universe cannot be changed

5. Thus the actions of human beings cannot be changed

The first premise is given by an assumption of naturalism (atheism)

The second premise is also following the assumption of naturalism, there is nothing instrinsically 'extra-natural' in us.
On naturalism indeed, we are no different to apes, rocks and diahrea

The third premise comes from (1,2)

The fourth premise also follows from science and an assumption of naturalism

The fifth premise comes from (3,4)

-----

So it follows quite clearly, that 'Newtonian determinism' is true on a naturalistic worldview.

What does this imply for moral obligation?

Well, we ask the question, what is the fault of Hitler? Are his actions not just the result of the laws of physics
and chemistry working to produce his actions?

We see that there can be no fault pinned on the murderer, or the torturer of children, since they are merely acting
on the laws of physics and chemistry. (Of course magnified a billion times)

It is quite clear that moral obligation therefore does not exist on naturalism.

Note, you may even be a Natural law theorist (i.e. objective moral values are as true as the natural numbers) who is a naturalist
but you still needs to concede that Newtonian determinsism is a pillar of you belief, and thus you need to reject moral obligation.


-----

So at this point, we can offer the weaker Moral argument for the existence of God (one that only relies on moral obligation, rather than moral obligation and moral ontology)

1. If God does not exist, moral obligation does not exist

2. Moral obligation does exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

The defense of (1) has been given above in great detail, proving the correlation of determinism and naturalism.
The defense of (2) should come from the hearts of any sane person, people who disagree with this should be locked up never to see the light of day
Why? Well, why not? I'm not obligated to give you freedom after all (on the view of the one who disagrees with (2))

 

[SylviaB]

Except we believe that such people with bad circumstances in their life will be recompensed in the here-after for their suffering

they're heretics though