Does God exist

April 5, 2016, 11:37 am

Agree108 Disagree64

63%
37%

The debate "Does God exist" was started by Tebogo_tsweu on April 5, 2016, 11:37 am. 108 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 64 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

bennie posted 5 arguments, oscar90000 posted 3 arguments, luke1567 posted 1 argument, Unaluhabe posted 1 argument, jrardin12 posted 14 arguments, TRUELOVE posted 1 argument, WyattTrull posted 13 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 3 arguments, SalonY posted 1 argument, diecinueve posted 3 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 7 arguments, aspy posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

bennie, shinam27, idonteatthat, Anandapadmanabhan, fadi, oscar90000, lucylou15, luke1567, Jason9374, lets_hear_your_argument, Nova_Situmorang, itsme, wdz, neveralone, Ematio, AGustafson, Unaluhabe, jrardin12, devinmungo, Bnice80, ashok, WyattTrull, TRUELOVE, Carlod, Thandaza3, courage, a_9, m_ahmed and 80 visitors agree.
historybuff, JanavanRooyen, Pugsly, cancer_wins, sickboyblonde, Anjali, ETempus, allthetime, danielle, Daniel0416, Pablerasdh, SalonY, diecinueve, TheExistentialist, Allirix, JDAWG9693, Sparkytusk, Liam, aspy, Rosu and 44 visitors disagree.

aspy
replied to...

There are.


A literal study of explaining and understanding the evolutionary relationships of animals throughout history.

It's called phylogenetics.

2 weeks ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"and what Darwin himself said the biggest problem with evolution is that if it took millions of years for species to evolve then you would expect to see a LARGE number of skeletons that are in the process of changing but. at the best we have a few extremely doubtful examples and at the worst we have absolutely none"

This is very easy to address.
Let's look at the evolution of the horse since it's one of the most complete fossil records of any modern animal that we have
https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/fossil-horses/gallery/

Here we have a few dozen "transitional" species for the modern horse. However, the problem we see with evolution deniers is that that always want the stage in between the stages add infinitum.

if we look at humans:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species?sort_by=field_age_timeline_maximum_value

We, again, have a record of numerous transitional species. However, for every species we find the expectation is that we also find the species in between. So for every transitional fossil we find, evolution deniers want 2 more species add infinitum. This type of reasoning is simply moving the goal posts at every discovery.

Let's say we have species A and species C and we find transitional fossil B.

A-->B-->C
The denier will now want species A1 and B1

A->A1->B->B1->C

Once we have those they'll want Aa1 and A1a and Bb1 and B1b

A->Aa1->A1->A1a->B....etc...

This goes on ad infinitum. With how rare fossilization is in nature, you can't possibly expect to have a perfect fossil record for every species that ever existed. Your interpretation of the scale that Darwin meant when he said "large" is simply unrealistic. If you did just a little bit of research you'd see a pretty good fossil record for most modern animals in terms of their evolutionary stages. You'd be hard pressed to find many that don't have at least some transitional species in the record.

Furthermore, as has already been said. Evolution is a continuous process, so every species is a transitional species.

2 weeks, 5 days ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

1. In order for things to evolve over time then something would have to be added to their genetic code there is absolutely nothing in observable science that shows this has ever happened

Yes it has. The specific mutation type that is required here is called a frameshift mutation. It is the only way to truly add to the genetic code. Generally speaking, the "anti-evolution" crowd has maintained that such mutations do not cause beneficial effects and have never been observed. This paper: https://jvi.asm.org/content/92/8/e01770-17 published in the "Journal of Virology" for the American Society of Microbiology shows a NATURALLY occurring frameshift mutation with hugely beneficial effects. This is observable proof of beneficial frameshift mutations occurring in nature.

2. Life has never never ever been observed to come from non life
it doesn't need to be. If we can create life from non-life in a lab under conditions similar to those found on earth during it's pre-biology period that would be enough. Currently we have established that life probably originated from RNA rather than DNA. In a recent study we mixed a molecule called triaminopyrimidine (TAP) with ribose under conditions meant to mimic a drying pond on early Earth. TAP and ribose reacted together in high yield, with up to 80 percent of TAP being converted into nucleosides, which is the name for the ribose-base unit of RNA. We also have seen how natural process can lead to cell wall formations etc.. We've figured out natural process that replicate early RNA molecules etc...

While we don't have a complete solid theory of abiogenesis, it does seem like we're very close to having one. So if you want to hang your hat on the argument from ignorance you're proposing, I think it's not very convincing to anyone who keeps up with the actual studies on the matter.

2 weeks, 5 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

change in size is one of the biggest changes in bone. how much did the skin change? the lungs? the biggest change happened when the lungs were first developed. after that all lungs are pretty similar. the same goes for other parts of the body. they may get bigger or smaller, gain or lose a lobe, but they function pretty much the same.

thats the thing about god. he could make a general lung for all creatures, or he could make unique breathing mechanisms for all creatures. he can even make them work by magic with no physical mechanisms... but nature cant do that. it cant just whip out a new and unique lung from scratch. slow evolution doesnt work that way.

thats why our eyes are filled with water that has the same light bending properties as sea water. the eye evolved in sea water, and we forever have to compensate for its inefficiency in air. why would god do such a thing? if he created it as is, thats a massive error for no reason.

2 weeks, 5 days ago

Doesn't matter the size of the dinosaur. We are talking about a change of skin, bones, lungs, ext.

2 weeks, 6 days ago

We know it couldn't be instantaneous due to the great biological changes that would have to happen. Also, if it was instantaneous there would be no reason to believe in millions of years.

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

also not all dinosaurs were big

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

over how many generations? you do know it wasnt a sudden transformation?

2 weeks, 6 days ago

What I want is evidence of a dinosaur turning into a hen. There should be many fossils showing that change.

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

im saying all forms are transitional. i dont understand that concept at all. its based of a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

2 weeks, 6 days ago

So you are saying there are no transitional forms?

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

All skeletons are in the process of change. evolution is a continuous process. there are no transitional forms. im not sure what you guys are looking for so i ask you.

2 weeks, 6 days ago

"what would a skeleton in the process of changing look like?" Good question, can you tell me?

2 weeks, 6 days ago

Well, I don't know how people use Scripture to say the Earth is flat when the Bible, in several places gives the understanding that it is round.

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

it also helps me understand the other person's position and understanding of science.

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

many flat earthers believe in flat earth because of scripture, they are often correlated, but don't necessitate each other. it was not an accusation but a question.

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

yes. it does take a long time for evolution to happen in most cases. as for your large number of skeletons, all skeletons are subject to constant change... what would a skeleton in the process of changing look like?

2 weeks, 6 days ago

and what Darwin himself said the biggest problem with evolution is that if it took millions of years for species to evolve then you would expect to see a LARGE number of skeletons that are in the process of changing but. at the best we have a few extremely doubtful examples and at the worst we have absolutely none


Respond to this

2 weeks, 6 days ago

Why should creationists believe in a flat Earth?

2 weeks, 6 days ago

Radioactive dating has a big flaw in it. One really cannot determine the age of a rock because no one was there to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no one monitored the way those elements changed over it's entire geological history.
No one can measure the concentration of isotopes in the past.

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

there is lots of physical evidence of old universe. from radioactive dating to starlight travel times. what makes you believe young earth?

do you also believe in flat earth?

2 weeks, 6 days ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

so I am a young earth so where should we start?

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

2. again, evolution does not speak to origins; chemistry does.

it is no coincidence that life is made of elements in the upper right hand corner of the periodic table. those elements have 2 features: 1. fewer electron shells, making the positive nucleus closer to the outside world and 2. fuller electrons shells which are attracted to the positive nucleus and thus bringing that nucleus closer to the outside world (again).

thus the positive nucleus comes in closer contact with the negative electrons of other atoms to steal or share them making more and more complicated bonds. given time, a sufficient supply, and an energy source (the sun, geothermal), a replicating molecule like dna may or may not be inevitable depending on the math. but certainly very possible.

again, no mention of evolution, mutation, or selection. this is pure chemistry, no biology. totally different subject.

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

1. the way information in dna works is with 3 dna "letters" coding for a specific amino acids. the chain of amino acids then form a protein. dna has not changed since bacteria, it just found more usable forms over time.

mutation is simply the substitution, omission, or addition of one of those letters. nothing more. the general idea may seem fantastical, by but once you learn the process, its actually quite simple.

evolution does require an old earth view. if you are a young earth believer, evolution is not where we should start talking.

2 weeks, 6 days ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

and what Darwin himself said the biggest problem with evolution is that if it took millions of years for species to evolve then you would expect to see a LARGE number of skeletons that are in the process of changing but. at the best we have a few extremely doubtful examples and at the worst we have absolutely none

2 weeks, 6 days ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

some of my biggest arguments against evolution are

1. In order for things to evolve over time then something would have to be added to their genetic code there is absolutely nothing in observable science that shows this has ever happened


2. Life has never never ever been observed to come from non life

2 weeks, 6 days ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

well when the bible says god created the world it contradicts evolution

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

what part of the bible indirectly condemns the evolution?

and which of those non biblical arguments do you feel provides evidence against evolution?

2 weeks, 6 days ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

so I would like to briefly explain how even though the bible does not explicitly refer to evolution it can still be used to refute it

if I believe the bible and the bible states a fact. Then even though the bible never said anything about evolution being wrong it indirectly condemns it

2 weeks, 6 days ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

you miss the point I didn't put that link up there because I fully understand every thing in it the only reason I put it there is to show that there can be evidence against evolution that does not come from the bible and if I might add good evidence

2 weeks, 6 days ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

let me try to explain it, if evolution is true then its works in sync with everything else and if someone can prove that it does not work in sync with something that we know then even though it does not deal directly with what evolution deals with it casts considerable doubt on the case for evolution

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

also, its very easy to just post a link and make someone else do all the work to debunk it, then you just post another link.

do you even understand your own arguments? its best to make your case in your own words and then add the link to clarify. putting it into your own words helps you see the strengths and weaknesses in your own rgument. i highly recommend it!

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

are those evidences for the bible or evidences against evolution? your not the first person to post that link from answers in genesis. on the internet you can find sources for and against many topics, like flat earth for example. did you ever consider looking at the other sides sources?

i haven't clicked on it yet, but I'm assuming it will have the same cliche arguments like "transitional forms" or "micro evolution". those are less counter arguments and more misunderstandings.

as you said, the bible does not mention evolution, human clergy do. same human clergy who were horrified about alien moons during Galileo's time. do you refuse to believe Jupiter has moons? is not then you know human clergy can be wrong about science. do you worship God or your human priest?

2 weeks, 6 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

"so even though evolution does not directly deal with origins we still must consider it when figuring out what we believe".

so even though evolution has nothing to do with origins, you still try to debunk it based on your belief regarding origins? it seems like you just need a target to attack even if the target has nothing to do with your attack, a scapegoat. a zeal driven by emotion and lacking in reason. sorry if i misunderstood your post, but that is how your phrasing sounded to me.

2 weeks, 6 days ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

there are plenty of non biblical arguments for the bible https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/

3 weeks ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

I never claimed that the bible said anything about evolution

3 weeks ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

could you expound on exactly how my reasons and target is wrong

3 weeks ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

i understand there is emotion behind your belief, but your reasons, and target are wrong.

im not sure where the bible declares evolution didnt happen, or provides any details regarding chemistry, physics, or biology. the bible is a book on how to live, not an explanation of physical processes. it isnt close to being big enough.

3 weeks ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

we have to look at the implications of what we believe so even though evolution does not deal directly with origins we still must consider it when we are figuring out what we believe

3 weeks ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

evolution is how life changes. it does not speak about origins, that would be chemistry.

so even if you believe life was created and designed... it was designed to evolve. evolution is a fact.

3 weeks ago
diecinueve
replied to...

evolution has been observed in bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics

3 weeks, 1 day ago
WyattTrull
replied to...

atheists cling to science and the scientific method does not support evolution or anything like that because the scientific method says that it has to be observable and repeatable never in the history of the world has anything come from nothing

3 weeks, 1 day ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

why would nature have gravity that works near the sun but not near the moon? nature has no choice but to be uniform. god is the only one who can create chaos at will.
uniformity is an argument against god, not for god.

and do you even know how dna works or do you think its somehow like computer programming? the process is quite simple and very possible naturally. ignorance isnt a good argument.

3 weeks, 3 days ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

1. The complexity of our planet points to a Deliberate Designer who not only created our Universe, but sustains it today.
3. The Universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
This is the fine tuning argument. The argument essentially revolves around the fact that life exists in a place where life can exist. However, the question is, would you expect life to live anywhere but a hospitable place. If we had life in a high universal constant universe, then you might have a point since it would seem counter intuitive to have life in that sort of universe, but since we live in a low universal constant universe, it's actually expected

The anthropic principle answers this kind of reasoning. It states that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it, and that there is hence a survivorship bias. Proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. The universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias): i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting on the matter.

2. The Universe had a start - What caused it?
This is often the basis for KCA or the Kalam Cosmological argument. It is the based on infinite regression and simply places "God" into the gaps of our understanding of causality. Essentially the argument here is "because science doesn't have an answer to 'what happened before T=0?' we can presume God did it". However, there is nothing stopping us from making the same claim about Unicorns, ferries, etc.... being the original cause of the universe. You're simply inserting your own bias rather than making a valid point.

4. The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
This is exactly what you'd expect if you have evolution. A base molecule which can be altered and lengthened by natural process to encode ever more complex information. It's not really proof of God, it's exactly what you'd expect in a natural world.

5. Science proves there is a God if you do your research
This is an argument by assertion only. Please provide actual research articles as there is absolutely no peer reviewed, scientific literature that "prove" God.

3 weeks, 4 days ago
diecinueve
replied to...

The deliberate designer would be even more complex than the universe itself, so someone created him?

3 weeks, 4 days ago

1. The complexity of our planet points to a Deliberate Designer who not only created our Universe, but sustains it today.
2. The Universe had a start - What caused it?
3. The Universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
4. The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.
5. Science proves there is a God if you do your research.

3 weeks, 4 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

in your example, the ability to argue depends on the existence of logic.
but the existence of logic does not also depend on the ability to argue.
do you know what a circle is?

1 month, 3 weeks ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

You're not addressing the point. Again; by your logic the flying spaghetti monster is just as true as the God of the bible, as the God of the Koran, as the God of the Tora, as the God(s) of the Vedas, as the Norse Gods, etc....

1 month, 3 weeks ago

Not so because our faith is not blind. It is supported by evidence.

1 month, 3 weeks ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

You're just making up an exception to fit your pre-supposed conclusion.

By this logic, any and all religious texts and Gods are equally valid. I can say the flying spaghetti monster exists because the "Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" says so.

1 month, 3 weeks ago

Yes, because it is as true as logic. In fact we have logic because of the God of the Bible.

1 month, 3 weeks ago
Allirix
replied to...

And example would be:

God exists because the Bible says God exists and it's credible because it was inspired by God.

Or

The Bible is infallible because the bible says it's inspired by someone who is infallible.

1 month, 3 weeks ago

Yes it definitely is.

1 month, 3 weeks ago
Allirix
replied to...

That's not an example of circular reasoning.

1 month, 3 weeks ago

Actually circular reasoning is a valid argument. Circular reasoning is only a logical fallacy when it is arbitrary. Let me give you an example of non-arbitrary circular reasoning.

1. Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument
2. We can make an argument
3. Therefore, there must be laws of logic

This argument is a non-fallacious use of circular reasoning.

Therefore, presupposing God exists to argue that He exists is a reasonable circular argument. Why? Because without the God of the Bible we have no basis for assuming laws of logic.

1 month, 3 weeks ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

Because you're claiming that God is real because the Bible says so and that the Bible is accurate because it's the word of God. In order for it not to be circular reasoning you'd have to say the bible is true without invoking God or prove that God is real without invoking the bible.

1 month, 3 weeks ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

so your saying if someone is mentioned in a book they must be real? harry potter?

1 month, 3 weeks ago

How so?

1 month, 3 weeks ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"jrardin12Actually, I take that back, God can be proven physically. Jesus Christ is God. John 1."

This is circular reasoning not prove of god.

1 month, 3 weeks ago
diecinueve
replied to...

Science did not create the universe, it is just a way of studying it. We don't know how the universe was created, but that doesn't mean it was made by a god.

1 month, 3 weeks ago

Actually, I take that back, God can be proven physically. Jesus Christ is God. John 1.

1 month, 3 weeks ago

Actually, I would disagree, there is plenty of evidence for God. perhaps not physical evidence oh, but there are other evidences of God.

1 month, 3 weeks ago

no one can prove or disprove existence of God. usually atheists believe that the universe was created by science and if that's right, now tell me who created science?

God does exist. he is alive

1 month, 3 weeks ago

:(

2 years, 6 months ago

@debaters

so whats the final conclusion? god exists or not?

3 years, 9 months ago

Depends on the person. You can't force a person who believes in him to not believe anymore, and vice verse.

3 years, 9 months ago
bearjew1984
replied to...

explain how the laws of science came to be.

3 years, 9 months ago

Before you read my argument I respect all walks of life, but I'm nowhere near a theist or even an atheist, I'm a deist.
The bible and the story of Noah's Arc is almost like a fable( a fictional story) with a moral lesson for theists. Ninety-nine percent of the biblical stories follow this same procedure. So to argue that the arc was filled with animals and sailed over rainfall is misleading and not accurate. If one is going to argue over the existence of a supreme being who moved the universe, then argue with full blown scientific and philosophical truths. Fundementalism (the belief that bible stories happened accurately in history) is almost gone in all revealed religions.

3 years, 9 months ago
Sosocratese
replied to...

This article is literally the just one guys opinion. Jake Herbert, a creation scientist (whatever that's supposed to be) is the only one to think these metal nodules are somehow related to a global flood.

That hardly constitutes proof. Especially when the scientific community is agreed that there was no global flood.

Let's just look at the flood for a minute. There is no evidence that the earth has enough water to cover the entire earth the way the Bible describes it. You would have to have water levels up to about 30k feet above sea level today (everest is over 29k feet). You would have to deal with the fact that the entire remaining biological population was supposed to have survived above 26k feet (the death zone). We'd have to square the genetic variability problem, there is no evidence of genetic bottlenecks, there is no evidence of a rapid "draining". There is no way we would have any reefs if the flood occurred, the salinity changes to the oceans would have killed all the fish.... Do I need to go on?

The boat named the Wyoming pretty much proved that wooden boats of that size are not sea worthy.... Especially in oceans without a landmass to break up waves and currents....an ocean like that would have been extremely violent.

3 years, 9 months ago
swat
replied to...

heres the proof of noah's ark

http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.charismanews.com/world/48839-scientists-find-evidence-of-genesis-flood-and-noah-s-ark&ei=qZnvBB9Q&lc=en-IN&s=1&m=677&host=www.google.co.in&ts=1460181400&sig=APY536wjk4Jf2L2rygvGWfYOZLDkSA0VLw

3 years, 9 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

Which one are you talking about? There have been several "discoveries" of Noah's ark. The most famous is Durupinar, which has been debunked by many, many people, including creationists. If you mean a different one, let me know and I can research it.

3 years, 9 months ago

What about the mountain in Turkey where they have found a huge wooden ship matching the measurements of Noah's Ark?

3 years, 9 months ago
Sosocratese
replied to...

Noahs ark is not proven. Please show me the data that proves noah's ark. Regional floods did happen around the time described, but none were so big as to be considered global. There is also no evidence of a man named Noah, and there is scientific proof that there was no genetic bottle neck anywhere around the time of Noah.

3 years, 9 months ago
oscar90000
replied to...

of course not Bible is not the evidence, bit yes the evidens exists, jesus did exist it fact Noone can say against, but what he did is up to belive, as well Noah's ark is proven

3 years, 9 months ago

http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html&ei=M5TmGsd_&lc=en-IN&s=1&m=677&host=www.google.co.in&ts=1460126535&sig=APY536y9Mo45VEOJqbqUCULL4q-btITOww

3 years, 9 months ago
RyanWakefield
replied to...

where is this proof?

3 years, 9 months ago
swat
replied to...

yes

3 years, 9 months ago
oscar90000
replied to...

does it matter?

3 years, 9 months ago
swat
replied to...

are you priest?

3 years, 9 months ago

Jesus is proven, Noah's ark is proven, even located right and time is correct, so of course

3 years, 9 months ago
swat
replied to...

sosocratese, if not jesus then buddha. buddha must have existed.

3 years, 9 months ago

So we've arrived at the circular reasoning part of the debate.....you need secular sources (I.e. Roman census data or archeological evidence to verify Jesus) you can't use scripture to justify scripture...

3 years, 9 months ago
bennie
replied to...

There's historical evidence of a man named Isha son of Mary, and there's the Dead Sea scriptures, and the Gospel of Barnabas, and the gospel of Peter. And Jesus never claimed to be God in the Bible.

3 years, 9 months ago

There is no historical evidence of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. His story, like many of the stories in the Bible, is likely a retelling of another Mesopotamien myth or the combination of a few. Just like noah's flood etc...

Likely candidates are of course "The epic of Gilgamesh", "Horus", "mithra", "Krishna", and even "Buddha".

All of these stories preceded the story of Jesus Christus and all have similar content to the Christian myths. The epic of Gilgamesh is seems to be the most influential book story for the Christian story...

3 years, 9 months ago

but not satan and all other non sense stuff.

3 years, 9 months ago
swat
replied to...

jesus existed.

3 years, 9 months ago

I know I exist. if I claim to be God is that proof of God's existence? Jesus probably existed (you can't definitely prove he did). but how does that prove that the things he said were true. there have been thousands if not millions of false prophets and saviors. just because he is the most popular one does not mean what he said was true.

3 years, 9 months ago

isnt jesus called as god? i think he is. and we all know jesus did exist a long time ago.

SO GOD EXISTS.

3 years, 9 months ago

Not magical being, magic is an illusion this is reality, its more like a creator.

3 years, 9 months ago

You're right, there is no way to prove or disprove God outright. You can disprove scripture. However, you will find very few people who will not try and weasel out of this type of debate.

That's where the fun lies in debating the concepts of religion. It's a cat and mouse game to me. The goal isn't to disprove that God exists or that a particular religion is wrong. That kind of proof will never exist. The only thing you can hope for is for the opposition to make contradictory statements, or you get them into a loop (x therefore God, God therefore x) - - - >the last one is my usual goal since it pretty much demonstrates the end of the line for a cohesive argument.

At this point, religious debates are a cat and mouse game. If you do this often enough you can predict the usual responses and word your queries in such a way as to place traps should they answer certain points in a certain way (socratic method). It's pretty easy since most of the rebuttals by apologists are fairly uniform.

I've actually been contemplating on making a new account here so I can jump in and argue the apologist position since most of the apologists here use rather poor arguments (seems like a lot of people here like the William Craig arguments).

If you're debating someone like Alex, who is a fairly soft apologist this task gets harder. Most often soft apologists will acknowledge certain scientific facts which are indisputable (I.e. Evolution as a method of speciation, the big bang). They will however try and insert God into the gaps of those theories (I.e. Abiogenesis, the cause of the big bang). Even this position is getting harder and harder to defend however. As we fill the gaps of these theories, we can demonstrate natural processes which offer alternative explanations to the origin of the universe and of life. None of them are robust enough to be considered a scientific theory of abiogenesis or the pre-big bang conditions, however they are robust enough to present a valid hypothetical alternative to supernatural entities.

Since God is also just a hypothetical explanation of natural phenomena, it is perfectly fair to introduce scientific hypothesis as a counter argument.

The last thing you can do is to show inconsistencies in a belief system. With the abrahamic faiths this can be done by demonstrating that Adam and Eve couldn't have existed (that's a fairly easy task). This is because Adam and Eve form the basis of sin and salvation in the abrahamic faiths.

3 years, 9 months ago
RyanWakefield
replied to...

what I find makes it impossible to debate the existence of God is the fact that every proof has to have a proof. For example, you can't say that the evolution is true because Charles Darwin said so, you have to prove what Charles Darwin said was true. By this logic for a fact to be proven, it must be proved in a chain that ends with a fact that must be definitely true without any way of disputing it. No such fact exists, so technically nothing can be proven.

3 years, 9 months ago

Creating existence is comparable to creating logic. If a+b=c, then it must be provable by what exists. On the other hand, to make it so that a+b=c, there needs to be a way to have this occur, and while the result is how it is now, we cannot go backwards as proof that it is how it would have been. I am basically saying that using logic on an observation wouldn't change, but changing an observation would change the logic. Therefore, if something can't come from nothing, then either we must decide that something is currently coming or has from nothing in an unobservable way or that something that defies existence made it so, be it mechanism of the universe, will of the omnipotent, or otherwise. But considering the illogical, even the illogical or impossible a proposed logic must also follow with it, and if it isn't impossible, then the illogical's logic must follow in suit.

Therefore, if God is omnipotent, then he created logic, and exists outside of it. We already have considered the change in things by observation, and that certain perspectives are created by heuristics, and there are theories that even the human species acts as a collective super organism. To say God is illogical, yeah, that is the premise of God because it is necessary for God to be illogical. If God were logical, God would be limited and therefore not God. But illogic is often used to describe the misunderstood, like a tainted experiment. Therefore, logical and illogical are observations, and not properties when it comes to God. Capable, yet unreasonable.

It's almost like stating the obvious, saying that God is illogical, but that doesn't fall on either side of the argument.

3 years, 9 months ago

and the logical response to where life came from is that a magic being you can't see or hear did it? that is not the least bit logical.

3 years, 9 months ago
bennie
replied to...

No person on the earth in the universe can explain how all species came to life, they can tell you what species are fromed , combined, created from, but not tell you how we are alive!!! use logic, rationality think

3 years, 9 months ago
bennie
replied to...

Oh, nice one Einstein, is there or is there not a process in creation?

3 years, 9 months ago

life is not a computer. life evolves all on its own. it has no need for a creator.

3 years, 9 months ago
bennie
replied to...

Is there a source of life? to how all species are able to breathe and move. I mean, can a robot or a computer build itself?

3 years, 9 months ago

no he doesn't lol

3 years, 9 months ago

there is no evidence that he exists. therefore you cannot say that he exists definitively. and if you try to say that you can then you're a fool.

3 years, 9 months ago

yes he exists

3 years, 9 months ago
Discuss "Does God exist " arts
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.