Arguements for or against God - Page 3

Okamifujutsu · #21 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by masterproctor

I don't dismiss logical arguments, I just don't believe they summarily qualify as an absolute proof. Now I don't know much about Einstein, so I won't pretend I do. My only problem with your logic is that A logical argument that can't be disproven doesn't necessarily make it right. It may be a good argument because of other people's ignorance. In fact, many of Einstein's theories (from what little I know) were good logical arguments using standard physics, but were disproven in the field of quantum physics. So another example would be Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica proof for God that was accepted as fact for centuries because his argument couldn't be disproven. It was literally like a Supreme Court Case when being referenced by theologians.

Its just that when dealing with absolutes, I don't believe one logical argument will win the day. That's not to say discussion is pointless, I do think we need discussion, but to assume that there will be a winner at the end of this post I think is highly unlikely, if not down-right impossible. There is just too many arguments on either side that either won't be addressed or won't be analyzed thoroughly since its SUCH a complex question not to mention the answer... which I actually believe is 42.

and @ Mas Tequila, thank you very much for the nice comments. I see myself and you having some heated discussions in the future, but I am far more reasonable than some of my "BUSH IS AN IDIOT" counterparts

I guess I agree with you, for the most part. One thing that I think can be accomplished with this, though, is whether or not there is a rational for an initial belief in God. I've been in arguments before over whether or not God should have to be disproved, anymore than invisble pink unicorns should be disproved. Logical arguments that don't universally prove or disprove God are useful in that situation.

masterproctor · #22 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 09:32 PM

Hah

That goes into another touchy topic of human nature and the intervention of the almighty into our innate systems of being. I don't even want to touch that one off. That's just as complex, but its an easy sociology experiment. Too bad I have no data to prove or disprove that fact.

However, I do believe that the belief in God is a pure product of nurture and not nature, and anyone that isn't religious could rationally grasp that principle that God isn't built within our genetic framework just like language isnt.

But I guess thats a bit too secular for some.

Okamifujutsu · #23 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 09:47 PM

Well, Chomsky would disagree with you that language isn't genetic. Also, I don't have any source for this, but I've heard that they have found a region of the brain that seems to promote belief in the supernatural, or something along those lines. But that's really beside the point. I completely agree that God was invented and not found. And that's not an argument I want to go into in this thread. All I wanted was a list of arguments, not a meta-argument about our arguments.

masterproctor · #24 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 10:02 PM

Its funny because I was actually arguing chomsky's view but I said it COMPLETELY wrong. The Genetic framework for language is inherent in us, but we don't have the innate understanding of any specific language like Chinese, Japanese, English etc. Sorry for being dolt.

Okamifujutsu · #25 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 10:12 PM

I figured that's what you meant, I'm just used to needing to jump on people around here. And I haven't gotten too much into language theory, but Chomsky's ideas make a lot of sense to me.

MasTequila · #26 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B L Zeebub

Oh dear Mas' did I let you down in the nemesis stake's as well

Ps what time is it with you?

It is around 8:30 AM now last night I stopped posting around mid-night. I need to get a life.

as for the nemesis stake, your name scared the crap out of me. I enjoyed that because of all the people on this forum that tell me I'm full of crap all the time. I now have an argument against them, because of your influence on me, so therefore you can't be my nemesis.

JavaBlack · #27 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:42 AM

When I am in a theistic mood (I go back and forth from hardcore humanistic athiest to deist), my argument is usually:

God = The Cosmos minus the sum of its parts.

The argument I make is that there are things in existence that, while they may be products or observations only allowable by the reactions of physical matter, go beyond physical matter.
Ideas, society, aesthetics... all things that whether products or not of a material world have a vlue that cannot be placed in material terms and have an existence of their own not existing within matter (though possibly only practical with it).

For instance, an intangible idea can spread from generation to generation while holding no physical reality of its own at any point in time. Human relationships and whole societies are built on this.
That is God. Did it make us or we make it? Both or neither or... who cares?

Of course this makes God itself a different being from Nature... and I try to avoid the frivelous practice of equating the two.

Of course, I pretty much believe the same thing in my atheistic state... The only difference is whether I consider that a suitable definition of God.
Really whether I believe in God or not is entirely dependent on how you bring the subject up.

BillyBob · #28 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:52 AM

The evidence of God's existence can be seen in the lives changed by Him.

Herkdriver · #29 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyBob

The evidence of God's existence can be seen in the lives changed by Him.

That is an eloquent statement.

Perhaps there is hope for you yet!

Oxymoron · #30 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 08:03 AM

1. There is a far better chance of life having been a product of intelligence rather then a wild chance.
2. Science cannot explain or comprehend where the building blocks of the Universe came from.
3. The Universe is far to complicated and ordered to exist with no reason or direction.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode