Suggestions that god exists

rolls

That doesn't make any sense to me at all, why can't we ask any questions we want about it just because we assume they exist?

Even if this is so what does it have to do with what we are discussing?

Relena

I mean, speaking of God's being, we can assume, by language, properties that don't belong to God, now that's multiplying entities unnecessarily, asking about the God's creator just doesn't provide any evidence that the universe is created or not.

I still insist that God's existence can't be proved by logic abstractly without religion.

DaveC426913

[Devil'sAdvocate]
On the contrary, it is not more complex; it is simpler. It coalesces all the mysteries of our universe into a single, neat, discreet mystery.
[/Devil'sAdvocate]

rolls

That is like saying we have 1000 individual problems, we are going to make them simpler by compiling a book with all 1000 problems in it and call it a single problem that needs to be solved.

I know you were taking the piss but I couldn't help myself lol.

Evo

It's a cop out. It boils down to "I don't know the answer so I'll make something up". And if anyone asks why there is no evidence of this thing, "oh it's because it's supernatural and humans can't comprehend it". Etc.., etc... Like when they used to believe that demons and evil spirits caused illness.

DaveC426913

Yes.


I was simply making the point that "God just makes things more complicated" is a weak refutation of God. There are stronger ones.

My common philosophy - especially in things related to religion - is to ensure that the strongest argument against it be nurtured, groomed and disseminated. To that end, I seek to discourage weak arguments that can be more easily attacked by opponents of atheism.

...which is the definition of Devil's Advocate - to take an opposing position in order to test the quality of the argument on the table.

rolls

It wasn't a refutation of god, it was just a question of whether or not it is less of a leap of faith to believe in a creature capable of creating a universe and life from nothing, or to believe that given x trillion trillion planets that it is likely life will evolve on one of them.

If it is less of a leap of faith, why do people insist on using the argument, "well it is the simplest explanation, I cant explain how it happened, so someone else must have created it all".

TubbaBlubba

The problem is that;
1. You assume that the universe requires a creator.
2. You assume that a creator does not require a creator.

Both of this without any premises as far as I can see.

DaveC426913

Is he assuming, or is he postulating?

TubbaBlubba

Isn't a postulate supposed to be self-evident?

Evo

How about "in the beginning, there was a supreme being, but he exploded with a *big bang*".

What about all of the thousands of creation myths with fish, reptiles, and amphibians? What about all of the other thousands of gods? Why is it that people forget how many gods are worshipped on this planet?

Relena

I didn't assume any thing solely, I say if it is assumed that the universe requires creation this doesn't mean that the creator of the universe is created, because the creator properties are different from creature properties. the creator won't be made of something like atoms or energy he is just indescribable except by what he describes himself.

As I said it twice before, God's existence is beyond our bottom-up logic, and the need for God is not the need for knowledge, we may be able to reduce everything we see into laws, however we won't know why such rules exist, one would say that such a question is a fault of language and there is nothing like "why is this like that", this is an opinion but not a profound fact, besides it's out of science's hand.

Most of people on earth don't need to know anything about the universe, they just want to know their own destiny, too many of them are just half believers because they don't want to take the risk that 0.00001% God exists, and thus the whole life would be like a test, and who knows what destiny is waiting for them beyond death, other people just make jokes of that because they find it a pride not to fear the so called God even if existed, and they feel proud not to be fooled by the liars called prophets and the hocuspocus holy books. The same scenario have been happening from centuries, no matter how developed the basis of refutation became, it is still based on human pride not understanding.

That's why I find the idea of philosophical/ non religious God absurd and goalless, and that's why I can clearly see that this discussion will never end, unless closed of course.

TubbaBlubba

As Richard Dawkins put it, paraphrased; "A Christian is atheistic towards 9,999 gods. I'm atheistic towards 10,000."

DaveC426913

Note though, that the same trouble applies to an explanation that doesn't include God as well as one that does.

Whether the ultimate answer is a self-referencing Grand Unified Equation that explains First Cause, or whether it is a conscious entity that explains First Cause makes no difference in the solution to the conundrum of how all existence pulled itself up by its own bootstraps.

There is nothing that the "God" solution addresses that the "GUE" solution doesn't also address, and there is nothing that the "God" solution leaves open that the GUE solution does not also leave open.

So, what we are left with is that God is still redundant. It solves nothing.

DaveC426913

But wanting existence to not be "absurd and goalless" does not make it so.

Wanting there to be an objective meaning to life does not mean there is any.

Which is why so many see Believers as wishful thinkers.

pftest

I saw on the first page statements like "a creator isnt needed in nature" and "nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe". I understand this is being said in the context of a "god-creator" during the big bang, but even so those statements are false for the reason that conscious humans exist and influence the universe. So this establishes in principle that conscious creative forces are natural. Looking at humans we can also see that a creator can in principle create/consciously influence himself, make himself more or less complex, etc. Many of the things that are said to be impossible, irrational or inplausible in the context of a god-creator, are known to happen with human-creators.

DaveC426913

Your rationale does not falsify the claims. It is non sequitur (...one does not follow from the other...).

The universe got along just fine before humans (or any life) came along, so it is still true that
- a creator isnt needed in nature
- nothing suggests a conscious influence in the creation of the universe