I think I have some solid points for proof that there is no god.

Is this thread 10 pages yet?Schnauzerz

no but I expect this thread to be around for along time

But how do we know if there even is a higher power? There could of been one matter particle that had a special DNA(Sounds corny and unlikely, but It is still plausible).Vilot_Hero

We don't know how the universe started.

That makes me an agnostic. I believe that people who claim to "know" about our universal origins are delusional and often arrogant, so I live my life as an atheist. This gives me the greatest scope for my own impartial research into such matters.

Beleif in God is not only held by christians, and generally most theists will say God always existed.

123625

They will all say that...

Theist (n) the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation

[QUOTE="VacantPsalm"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Exactly what I'm thinking. There is no proof that the bible is 100%correct or even close to correct for that matter.Vilot_Hero

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]

-If everything is made up of matter, then how Is It possible for god to be created or to be in existence, If there was nothing from the start? And If god just magically appeared, then how could he of created the world? Its scientifically impossible. Its the whole chicken or the egg argument again. How could the big bang suddenly exist? Spontaneous and random occurences exist that are unfortunately beyond the lines of logic and reason.

Which logically, god couldnt exist because nothing cant just create some sort of entity or presense.

domatron23

What you are referring to is actually the cosmological argument for the existence of God, not against. You noted that something can not just be made from nothing- how do you explain the existence of the universe then? The answer traditionally is God who is eternal, uncaused, unmade, unmoved and not in accordance of the logical rules of the universe.

Seriously your arguments are really quite weak.

We're being tough on you because these are very basic objections which have been stomped for as long as God has been believed in. Here's an argument for God's eternity:

P1 Everything physical that begins must have a cause

P2 Something that is physical cannot exist infinitely

P3 The universe is physical and it began

P4 therefore the universe must be caused by something non-physical that never began (was eternal)

Go and do some research on Thomas Aquinas.

Now as for the existence of God in relation to this argument here is something that you might be interested in.

Domatron23: Does the first cause need to be God?

diz360

Nope. That's why it's an argument rather than a proof. Samuel Clark made some kinda crappy arguments to reason that a first cause must be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent but I didn't find it convincing,.

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="VacantPsalm"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Exactly what I'm thinking. There is no proof that the bible is 100%correct or even close to correct for that matter.VacantPsalm

It has something to do with the fact that you believe that "science can prove that god is not real." (that was taken right from your first post.) Science can't 100% prove anything because it's limited to our minds.VacantPsalm

Sorry, there is such a thing as scientific proof, which creates models of human understanding. Science clearly is not limited to our minds, since we have benefited more greatly through science in the last 200 years than by any other human pursuit in history.

These 'prophecies' in the Bible are a farce at best. Any prophecy ever made will be vague enough to apply to any context, so anyone willing to believe it will be willing to stretch the connections. Just like starsigns, which are extremely vague. Christians have been saying that it is the "End of Times" for thousands of years and is practically a scare tactic to get people to believe. Saying that this is the "End of Times" every day for the rest of eternity and one day you'll get lucky.

Wasn't Jesus supposed to return whilst the Apostles were still alive, anyway? (Excluding the resurrection). It's been a while since I read about that one, so I can't be sure...

I consider this whole prophecy and End of Times deal to be an asymptote, where we'll forever be approaching said end of time but never actually reach it.

[QUOTE="diz360"]

Domatron23: Does the first cause need to be God?

domatron23

Nope. That's why it's an argument rather than a proof. Samuel Clark made some kinda crappy arguments to reason that a first cause must be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent but I didn't find it convincing,.

Exactly. So I can't see why there was a dig a Violet for citing proof of a deity, when the first cause need not be divine.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

We're being tough on you because these are very basic objections which have been stomped for as long as God has been believed in. Here's an argument for God's eternity:

P1 Everything physical that begins must have a cause

P2 Something that is physical cannot exist infinitely

P3 The universe is physical and it began

P4 therefore the universe must be caused by something non-physical that never began (was eternal)

Go and do some research on Thomas Aquinas.

Now as for the existence of God in relation to this argument here is something that you might be interested in.

Vilot_Hero

Sure. But theists generally just say "where did that particle come from? What caused it?". That's the question that always regresses back to God.

A particle such as you have described would have to go against P1 it would have to be causeless. Or it could go against P2 it could be infinite.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="diz360"]

Domatron23: Does the first cause need to be God?

diz360

Nope. That's why it's an argument rather than a proof. Samuel Clark made some kinda crappy arguments to reason that a first cause must be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent but I didn't find it convincing,.

Exactly. So I can't see why there was a dig a Violet for citing proof of a deity, when the first cause need not be divine.

Violet is trying to disprove God. It is possible that the first cause is God- not necessary but possible. Hence my dig.

Sure. But theists generally just say "where did that particle come from? What caused it?". That's the question that always regresses back to God.

A particle such as you have described would have to go against P1 it would have to be causeless. Or it could go against P2 it could be infinite.

domatron23

What I fail to grasp is that their God can be infinite, but the Universe, or whatever inanimate thing it stemmed from cannot.

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

We're being tough on you because these are very basic objections which have been stomped for as long as God has been believed in. Here's an argument for God's eternity:

P1 Everything physical that begins must have a cause

P2 Something that is physical cannot exist infinitely

P3 The universe is physical and it began

P4 therefore the universe must be caused by something non-physical that never began (was eternal)

Go and do some research on Thomas Aquinas.

Now as for the existence of God in relation to this argument here is something that you might be interested in.

domatron23

Sure. But theists generally just say "where did that particle come from? What caused it?". That's the question that always regresses back to God.

A particle such as you have described would have to go against P1 it would have to be causeless. Or it could go against P2 it could be infinite.

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

We're being tough on you because these are very basic objections which have been stomped for as long as God has been believed in. Here's an argument for God's eternity:

P1 Everything physical that begins must have a cause

P2 Something that is physical cannot exist infinitely

P3 The universe is physical and it began

P4 therefore the universe must be caused by something non-physical that never began (was eternal)

Go and do some research on Thomas Aquinas.

Now as for the existence of God in relation to this argument here is something that you might be interested in.

domatron23

Sure. But theists generally just say "where did that particle come from? What caused it?". That's the question that always regresses back to God.

A particle such as you have described would have to go against P1 it would have to be causeless. Or it could go against P2 it could be infinite.

See here

Of course, there could be another cause (collapsing universe or M theory), aside from God as the first cause.

domatron23, could you give the main point to Thomas Aquinas? Im looking at Wiki, but the info is pretty long(Some of It may be pointless).Vilot_Hero

The first theree of Aquinas' five ways relate to what you're saying about the universe and God.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

We're being tough on you because these are very basic objections which have been stomped for as long as God has been believed in. Here's an argument for God's eternity:

P1 Everything physical that begins must have a cause

P2 Something that is physical cannot exist infinitely

P3 The universe is physical and it began

P4 therefore the universe must be caused by something non-physical that never began (was eternal)

Go and do some research on Thomas Aquinas.

Now as for the existence of God in relation to this argument here is something that you might be interested in.

Vilot_Hero

Sure. But theists generally just say "where did that particle come from? What caused it?". That's the question that always regresses back to God.

A particle such as you have described would have to go against P1 it would have to be causeless. Or it could go against P2 it could be infinite.

The only thing that could make particles not obey physical properties is a higher power. A world built on physical properties can only be effected by physical properties.

[QUOTE="VacantPsalm"]

It has something to do with the fact that you believe that "science can prove that god is not real." (that was taken right from your first post.) Science can't 100% prove anything because it's limited to our minds.diz360

Sorry, there is such a thing as scientific proof, which creates models of human understanding. Science clearly is not limited to our minds, since we have benefited more greatly through science in the last 200 years than by any other human pursuit in history.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

We're being tough on you because these are very basic objections which have been stomped for as long as God has been believed in. Here's an argument for God's eternity:

P1 Everything physical that begins must have a cause

P2 Something that is physical cannot exist infinitely

P3 The universe is physical and it began

P4 therefore the universe must be caused by something non-physical that never began (was eternal)

Go and do some research on Thomas Aquinas.

Now as for the existence of God in relation to this argument here is something that you might be interested in.

diz360

Sure. But theists generally just say "where did that particle come from? What caused it?". That's the question that always regresses back to God.

A particle such as you have described would have to go against P1 it would have to be causeless. Or it could go against P2 it could be infinite.

See here

Of course, there could be another cause (collapsing universe or M theory), aside from God as the first cause.

Dude I'm familiar with the Cosmological argument. The oscillating universe theory is not well supported and I don't know much about string theory. How does it relate to the argument?

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

We're being tough on you because these are very basic objections which have been stomped for as long as God has been believed in. Here's an argument for God's eternity:

P1 Everything physical that begins must have a cause

P2 Something that is physical cannot exist infinitely

P3 The universe is physical and it began

P4 therefore the universe must be caused by something non-physical that never began (was eternal)

Go and do some research on Thomas Aquinas.

Now as for the existence of God in relation to this argument here is something that you might be interested in.

gatorteen

Sure. But theists generally just say "where did that particle come from? What caused it?". That's the question that always regresses back to God.

A particle such as you have described would have to go against P1 it would have to be causeless. Or it could go against P2 it could be infinite.

The only thing that could make particles not obey physical properties is a higher power. A world built on physical properties can only be effected by physical properties.

But It might not of been a higher power because a genetic code or blueprint could of been in one of those entities.Vilot_Hero

Violet this is what we call a circular argument.

1. What made the earliest physical thing

2. God must have done i- he's not physical

3. Maybe something else physical made it! (return to point 1)

You're begging the question.

Those aren't strong points,in fact they're pretty flimsy.

I do not think there is any way to prove or disprove God's existence. However, it begs the ultimate question: Is religion the answer to life's purpose, or is it the greatest farce of all time? Unforunately, I think we will only truly know in death.

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]But It might not of been a higher power because a genetic code or blueprint could of been in one of those entities.domatron23

Violet this is what we call a circular argument.

1. What made the earliest physical thing

2. God must have done i- he's not physical

3. Maybe something else physical made it! (return to point 1)

You're begging the question.

Those aren't strong points,in fact they're pretty flimsy.

AirGuitarist87

EDIT: Sorry for double post.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]But It might not of been a higher power because a genetic code or blueprint could of been in one of those entities.Vilot_Hero

Violet this is what we call a circular argument.

1. What made the earliest physical thing

2. God must have done i- he's not physical

3. Maybe something else physical made it! (return to point 1)

You're begging the question.

You can put up all the threads you want, and you might prove some things wrong, but you will not be able to prove this point we are discussing.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]But It might not of been a higher power because a genetic code or blueprint could of been in one of those entities.Vilot_Hero

Violet this is what we call a circular argument.

1. What made the earliest physical thing

2. God must have done i- he's not physical

3. Maybe something else physical made it! (return to point 1)

You're begging the question.

Send me a PM about it please, I'll be very interested to see it. You see I'm a university student taking philosophy papers so if you can disprove God with science then it would affect me significantly.

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]But It might not of been a higher power because a genetic code or blueprint could of been in one of those entities.gatorteen

Violet this is what we call a circular argument.

1. What made the earliest physical thing

2. God must have done i- he's not physical

3. Maybe something else physical made it! (return to point 1)

You're begging the question.

You can put up all the threads you want, and you might prove some things wrong, but you will not be able to prove this point we are discussing.

[QUOTE="gatorteen"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]But It might not of been a higher power because a genetic code or blueprint could of been in one of those entities.Vilot_Hero

Violet this is what we call a circular argument.

1. What made the earliest physical thing

2. God must have done i- he's not physical

3. Maybe something else physical made it! (return to point 1)

You're begging the question.

You can put up all the threads you want, and you might prove some things wrong, but you will not be able to prove this point we are discussing.

When were we talking about the the God that was in the Bible?

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]But It might not of been a higher power because a genetic code or blueprint could of been in one of those entities.domatron23

Violet this is what we call a circular argument.

1. What made the earliest physical thing

2. God must have done i- he's not physical

3. Maybe something else physical made it! (return to point 1)

You're begging the question.

Send me a PM about it please, I'll be very interested to see it. You see I'm a university student taking philosophy papers so if you can disprove God with science then it would affect me significantly.

What is so flimsy about them?

EDIT: Sorry for double post.

Vilot_Hero

Im not trying to flame peoples religions and such, but I have some pretty valid points that question whether god is real or not.

-Why do people say "god" answers their prayers when It could of been sheer luck? And compared with statistics, the argument is further questionable. The bible said god answers prayers, but peoples "prayers" are mostly if not all unanswered.

-Why do people look up to the bible so much when It could of been written by anyone(It just doesn't logically make sense).

-If everything is made up of matter, then how Is It possible for god to be created or to be in existence, If there was nothing from the start? And If god just magically appeared, then how could he of created the world? Its scientifically impossible.

I think science can prove that god is not real.

Vilot_Hero

1. This is a more philosophical debate then scientific reasoning. You could argue the same that my laptop has warded manbearpig away because he is not here, or maybe it's sheer luck that we just haven't crossed paths yet. You can't prove that something was either luck or the grace of God as neither can be objectively measured.

2. That's called faith. It is the grounds for religious belief.

3. That sounds an awful lot like the Big Bang theory. And you're forgetting the idea that God is all powerful.

Science cannot prove that something doesn't exist (re: manbearpig).

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="gatorteen"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]But It might not of been a higher power because a genetic code or blueprint could of been in one of those entities.gatorteen

Violet this is what we call a circular argument.

1. What made the earliest physical thing

2. God must have done i- he's not physical

3. Maybe something else physical made it! (return to point 1)

You're begging the question.

You can put up all the threads you want, and you might prove some things wrong, but you will not be able to prove this point we are discussing.

When were we talking about the the God that was in the Bible?

But If I prove a few things wrong, wouldn't that mean the bible isn't 100% correct(Which is related to god), which would mean that god isn't real?Vilot_Hero

Worst logic ever.

This is the problem with your thread, you are mistakenly thinking that the Christian Bible=God. Do Hindus believe in the Christian God, did the Greeks believe in the Christian God?

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]But It might not of been a higher power because a genetic code or blueprint could of been in one of those entities.Vilot_Hero

Violet this is what we call a circular argument.

1. What made the earliest physical thing

2. God must have done i- he's not physical

3. Maybe something else physical made it! (return to point 1)

You're begging the question.

Send me a PM about it please, I'll be very interested to see it. You see I'm a university student taking philosophy papers so if you can disprove God with science then it would affect me significantly.

The philosophy of religion perhaps might be pertinent.

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]What is so flimsy about them?

EDIT: Sorry for double post.

AirGuitarist87

Im not trying to flame peoples religions and such, but I have some pretty valid points that question whether god is real or not.

-Why do people say "god" answers their prayers when It could of been sheer luck? And compared with statistics, the argument is further questionable. The bible said god answers prayers, but peoples "prayers" are mostly if not all unanswered.

-Why do people look up to the bible so much when It could of been written by anyone(It just doesn't logically make sense).

-If everything is made up of matter, then how Is It possible for god to be created or to be in existence, If there was nothing from the start? And If god just magically appeared, then how could he of created the world? Its scientifically impossible.

I think science can prove that god is not real.

Vilot_Hero

1. This is a more philosophical debate then scientific reasoning. You could argue the same that my laptop has warded manbearpig away because he is not here, or maybe it's sheer luck that we just haven't crossed paths yet. You can't prove that something was either luck or the grace of God as neither can be objectively measured.

But it is in the bible, so science wins there.

2. That's called faith. It is the grounds for religious belief.

But It refers to Jesus and all those other people and stating what it looks like "facts". I mean Judgement Day? Seriously, but I think It's safe to say that science won there.

3. That sounds an awful lot like the Big Bang theory. And you're forgetting the idea that God is all powerful.

But there's no proof that god is real, so how could he be all powerful?

Science cannot prove that something doesn't exist (re: manbearpig).

Science will one day. At the technology rate were heading at, Im pretty sure that science will be undefeatable.

I still had some pretty good points in my posts.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Sure. But theists generally just say "where did that particle come from? What caused it?". That's the question that always regresses back to God.

A particle such as you have described would have to go against P1 it would have to be causeless. Or it could go against P2 it could be infinite.

Red-XIII

What I fail to grasp is that their God can be infinite, but the Universe, or whatever inanimate thing it stemmed from cannot.

They generally go with the natural vs supernatural argument. Different standards of reality.

I still had some pretty good points in my posts.

Vilot_Hero

Your points could certainly validate a belief in atheism but definitely not a proof of atheism.

Keep trying though. Thinking logically about these subjects is very important.

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]

Give me a reason why the bible holds every credit of truth in It?

4seal

Ummm... Jesus was a real person. Even the romans say he was real and that he was crucifyed. There. Happy?

Jesus was real =/= Jesus performed miracles and was the son of God.

1. god moves in mysterious ways... he may not answer your prayers directly but help you out in the best for you without effecting others

2. Anyone could include god, it's supposed to be god's message which was passed to the saints and such and they wrote it

3. God exists outside our dimensions so he can manipulate them at will, this is also the reason that he dosn't age

Nostradamus got several predictions right, so I don't see the difference for the predictions in the bible. It was sheer luck.Vilot_Hero

can you proove that?

1. This is a more philosophical debate then scientific reasoning. You could argue the same that my laptop has warded manbearpig away because he is not here, or maybe it's sheer luck that we just haven't crossed paths yet. You can't prove that something was either luck or the grace of God as neither can be objectively measured.

But it is in the bible, so science wins there.

2. That's called faith. It is the grounds for religious belief.

But It refers to Jesus and all those other people and stating what it looks like "facts". I mean Judgement Day? Seriously, but I think It's safe to say that science won there.

3. That sounds an awful lot like the Big Bang theory. And you're forgetting the idea that God is all powerful.

But there's no proof that god is real, so how could he be all powerful?

Science cannot prove that something doesn't exist (re: manbearpig).

Science will one day. At the technology rate were heading at, Im pretty sure that science will be undefeatable.

Vilot_Hero

Seriously, it's people like you that gives atheism a bad name. Saying one argument doesn't work does does instantly mean the other has "won".

1. How the hell did you figure that? What is in the bible? You're making no sense.

2. Again, what are you on about? Science proves that the bible exists?

3. There is no proof God isn't real. See where we're going with this?

That is the worst argument ever and incredibly hypocritical. You bring an argument to the table saying that science proves religion wrong, then state that it will one day. That is the exact kind of blind faith that is necessary for religion.

Could you be more elaborate in your points? So far alls I'm getting is "that may be wrong, ergo I am correct".