Arguements for or against God - Page 4

Herkdriver · #31 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okamifujutsu

I'd like to make a list of everyone's arguements for or against the existance of God. There obviously isn't physical evidence one way or the other, but we can make logical arguements. I'll start off with an ontolgoical one that I haven't seen before, so I'm going to claim I invented it. Feel free to debate it or add your own arguement.

1. God, by definition, exists/existed before/outside of the universe. In other words, the universe is not required for his existance.

2. The universe is, by the definition used in this arguement, all matter, energy, and space that exists. If something has mass, energy, or a unique location, it is part of the universe.

3. Therefore God, not a part of the universe, has no mass, energy, or a unique location. Without these, it is impossible to exist or interact with the universe in a meaningful way. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Nothing has a unique location.

This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

Quantum Mechanics verifies the duality of light energy as both particle and wave depending on how it is measured.

Your argument has more holes than swiss cheese....

respectfully.

JavaBlack · #32 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyBob

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

In some bizarre way I agree with you...
However the things we would each mean by this statement are extremely different.

To me the meaning of the statement is "the existence of God is evidenced by the effects it creates". The same logic is used in physics and social science.
And it can also be applied to other beings such as the boogeyman (Because of the boogeyman, a child will pull the sheets over his head tonight before falling asleep).

All it proves is that God is an idea.
But that does lead us to the question of "Are ideas real?" and if so "What is the nature of the reality of ideas?"

Okamifujutsu · #33 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

Nothing has a unique location.

This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

Quantum Mechanics verifies the duality of light energy as both particle and wave depending on how it is measured.

Your argument has more holes than swiss cheese....

respectfully.

If it has so many holes, maybe you could point them out. If nothing has a unique location, movement wouldn't be possible. Movement, being a change in position, can't exist if an object doesn't have a position to change. The Uncertainty Principle only says we cannot observe the exact location, not that it doesn't have one. And the duality of light has no impact on my arguement. So, if you find a hole, let me know.

Okamifujutsu · #34 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

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.

1. There's a far better chance of us coming into existance on our own then an all-powerful being coming into existance on his own and then creating us.
2. That doesn't prove anything. You can't say, "We don't know, therefore there's a god."
3. Maybe the universe looks ordered to you, but it doesn't to me, other than the fact that there are laws of physics. And there are many very complex things that we can prove occur naturally.

B L Zeebub · #35 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

That is an eloquent statement.

Perhaps there is hope for you yet!

Nah BB out that, was Mrs BB

Oxymoron · #36 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okamifujutsu

1. There's a far better chance of us coming into existance on our own then an all-powerful being coming into existance on his own and then creating us.
2. That doesn't prove anything. You can't say, "We don't know, therefore there's a god."
3. Maybe the universe looks ordered to you, but it doesn't to me, other than the fact that there are laws of physics. And there are many very complex things that we can prove occur naturally.

How did we come into existance on our own?

Since science cant explain creation it is not far fetched to believe in a creator.

Occur naturally = Intelligent design.

Okamifujutsu · #37 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

How did we come into existance on our own?

Since science cant explain creation it is not far fetched to believe in a creator.

Occur naturally = Intelligent design.

If you're talking about life, do some research on the various theories of abiogenisis. If you're talking about the universe, then you'll have to wait until quantum physicists figure out what happened during the big bang. Saying that someone made it doesn't explain how we came to be, because then we need to figure out how that person came to be. All you're doing is pushing the question back another step, not actually answering it.

And how are those equal? Last I checked, they were antonyms. Occuring naturally means that no one did anything to it, that it occured on it's own. Intelligently designed means someone made it happen in a specific way. Those are mutually exclusive.

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