The debate "Main reason many pple don't believe in God. Isn't cause of proof. Its because its hard to imagine" was started by
January 28, 2016, 9:30 am.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
ReadyToBegin posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 14 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 3 arguments, omactivate posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
aliot, llemponen, Fettywap100, DiamondPerfect, fLipp3r and 9 visitors agree.
Sosocratese, ReadyToBegin, sloanstar1000, PsychDave, flipbucket, progressive, omactivate, historybuff, SocialistRed, Jason9374 and 14 visitors disagree.
If that is what you took away from the flaws in your go to argument for providing God being pointed out, so be it.
I agree that the point of the article was to find the flaws in the 5 points. I said that before in my post. maybe you didn't see it.
that guy instead of finding flaws in the 5 proofs, he found a deeper meaning to them, and connected God was scientific theory quite well.
that is why I said that you are right, things have always been moving. there has always been God. God is the infinite talking about in the article. that article helped me to understand the universe more, and that nothing doesn't exist, and there was always things, because their has always been God. so I thank you for that article.
And to clarify, again, "my atheist" wasn't trying to prove God did not exist. He was illustrating the flaws in the 5 logical arguments. At no time did he claim to prove God was not real. Since he never said God isn't real since we don't understand him, this strawman does nothing to further your position.
Science explains itself with logic and testable predictions. When those predictions are proven, we know it is accurate. Whether you understand it is irrelevant to that. There is a difference between something you don't understand because you haven't studied it or learned about it and something you don't understand because it cannot be understood. To equate them is dishonest.
Why is saying there have always been things moving strange? The universe is infinite, meaning it has no end. While that is hard to wrap your hear around, that doesn't mean it isn't true. Can you picture a universe where nothing moves? Do you believe that a universe with no heat (since that is molecules moving), no light, no suns (which are nuclear reactions), nothing moving at all is easier to imagine than one in which things have always been moving?
the point of the article was to disprove the 5 proofs, not disprove God. and people still believe in the 5 proofs.
you could say "attempt to disprove" instead of "disprove".
yes one would be delusional if they did what you said.
1. if the article actually disproved God, nobody would believe in him.
2. I explained how the article and God can both be right.
then you are definitely hopeless. if you can read something that proves you wrong and believe you are right even more then you are delusional.
"you don't understand it, so it must not be true"
I was referring to your atheists saying God isn't teal because you don't understand him. then you accuse of of having blind faith. but when it comes to science blind belief Is ok.
the problem with everything always moving is that there must always be at least one thing in motion. how did the first thing come into motion? it was pushed by the unmoved mover, God.
you may be saying that there was always things in motion, and there was never "nothing". there was in infinite amount of past movement and objects. saying there was always things moving is very strange. it is a good way of avoiding a term "first", because infinity can't have a first.
and in a way you are right. there was no first thing, there was never nothing. there was God, and God certainly isn't nothing. God was always there, he is the one eternal being that moves everything else. so I think that article actually proves God more then disproves the 5 proofs. it defiantly helped me see another way science and religion are both right.
That is the problem with your argument, and the article. You don't understand it, so it must not be true. I don't have a full understanding of the internals of a cell phone, but that doesn't stop it from working.
As to the "things moving themselves", you are obviously misunderstanding. He is not saying that things move themselves, he is saying that nothing can ever really not be moving. Movement is relative, so unless everything is stationary compared to everything else, nothing can ever be said to not be moving to begin with. The "first mover" argument relies on the assumption that there was a time when nothing moved, but why should that be assumed?
the rest of the article seemed to depend on his idea of science being right. it all revolved around things moving itself and particles popping out of nowhere. that's the problem with the article he needs complicated science to have a shot at finding a flaw in the five proofs.
that article written by the atheist I gave yesterday does not need complicated science to prove God, only logic, and common sence. your article dies not use common sence, and instead uses a theory of science that may or may not be right.
I reread the article and the only thing I'm stuck on is when you need to know quantum fluctuations. I don't really feel like learning that, and I can't take your word on it, or any other scientist because that would be something called "blind science" or Believing something in science you have no proof or understanding of.
and we certainly can't have that:).
Upon rereading my post, it comes off rather condescending and insulting, which was not my intention.
I learn new things every day, and will never fault someone for not knowing something. I meant it quite literally that it wasn't something to be ashamed of because there is absolutely nothing wrong with not understanding something, so long as you acknowledge it and try to learn from it.
Also, you are absolutely correct that none of his points disprove God, but that wasn't his intent. He was refuting the 5 arguments for God's existence that are purely based on logic using logic. He explains the fallacies and flaws in each argument and provides evidence of these flaws. None of that proves God does not exist. What they do prove is that these arguments for God's existence are flawed and false.
Saying that science proves God doesn't exist is false. All science shows is that we have yet to encounter anything which demonstrates that He does. We have found better, simpler explanations that require no supernatural forces for observable events. That doesn't disprove God, but it disproves much of the evidence being used to justify belief (cataclysmic flood, creation story, etc).
Not sure how tired you are, but I did read the article. It's not something to be ashamed of that you couldn't follow the arguments, but they are valid arguments.
He does explain how things can "pop out of thin air" and even cites quantum fluctuations and Hawking radiation, so if you don't understand it you should be able to look into it and learn.
I'm curious how you got "things can move itself" from him saying that there is no stationary frame of reference, so saying something is at rest is inherently flawed. Again, I don't hold it against you that you didn't understand, but that seems more like you skimmed the article rather than reading it to cherry pick things you could try to refute. The author is essentially saying that there is no need for an unmoved mover since the idea that everything was at rest until moved is inherently flawed. At rest is a relative term. Even if you sit perfectly still, you are not at rest relative to the Sun, moon, or galactic central core. At rest is a meaningless term outside of closed systems, which the universe is not.
It may just be that you are tired, in which case I would encourage you to reread the article, or another less technical refutation of these 5 arguments since many have been made through the years.
maybe I'm just tired, but that article was confusing. seemed like that guy write random things hoping that one of the things he wrote is true. none of what he wrote seemed to directly disprove the proofs of God.
it seemed he also things that things can pop up out of thin air, and things can create itself, and things cam move itself.
I said if there was no God nothing would move. the world we know is not eternal. it had a beginning. even scientists say the world had a beginning.
Dave I go read that article now.
Since it has been directed many times by many scholars, I won't go through his arguments point by point. This is a link explaining the flaws and counterarguments to each of the 5. I could rewrite them if you'd like, but it seems redundant.
Alex, every one of those arguments are pleading the question. They also ironically rule out the possibility of infinity.
If there was a "first mover" you said yourself that it doesn't necessarily mean that it was God. So you eliminated your own argument. God isn't the only possibility, unless you redefine God to mean every possibility, which is what I think you did.
secondly a first mover doesn't have to exist if what exists has always existed, Which seems to be the case since you said nothing comes from nothing.
None of these arguments necessitate a "God"
my go to argument for proving God would be St. Thomas Aquinas 5 proofs of God.
The Proof from Motion. We observe motion
all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. there must have been a "First Mover" or God, or everything would be waiting around to get moved. even if you say "the big bang" something had to move that first particle.
The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. If you say "the big bang" then something had to create the first particle. we call him God.
The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God.
The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluated things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in ever way
The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design- the earth has the right temp, gas, size for us to live.
Alex, what is your BEST argument for God's existence? your go to argument
I have looked, for years. I have yet to find any.
omactivate there is proof for God if you actually look for it. put the same amount of time and energy you atheists (or agnostic) people use in evidence for evolution, and look for proof of God.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I don't have proof I don't believe. Like unicorns, bigfoot, mermaids, and all those myths
Adam and Eve didn't exist, that's a story, just wow
People lived a long time. is it not possible that they had less birth defects, or that birth defects were some kind of evolution.
God tacking Adam's rib to make a woman may have happened. there are two creation stories. this does not prove nor disprove God or evolution. even if God made eve out of adam, adam still could have evolved.
The Bible doesn't describe man evolving from other animals. It describes God making man from earth, then taking one of his ribs to form woman. That is quite explicit and quite different.
That in no way addresses the problem of inbreeding. If you married your sister, the chances of birth defects are not great. If your children married each other, the chances get even worse. That's why I suggested you look at how many individuals are needed to provide a viable starting population. Without that genetic diversity, inbreeding would kill us off.
about you population concerns. people had multiple children. 1 people has 6 children, 3 couples have 24 children...ect. easy concept.
diversity and different lauguages is, I believe formed from the tower of Babel, when God spread people thoughout the earth. you can also believe evolution played a part if you like l.
And I see no verse that has God saying he will flood the whole earth.
"why does there need to be a first human" and "there would be no 'first people' ". name anything that did not have a first. things need a first someone had to be first.
let's say evolution is true. the bible says God created sea animals then land animals, then adam and eve. evolution says sea creatures then land creatures then humans. same. God could have made animals, evolved them, then once a human creature was made God implanted a Soul. the soul is the key difference. the soul is what makes us in the image of God. so evolution from animals to humans could very well have happened.
Why does there need to be a first human couple? That us only necessary if they are created fully formed. If life started as simple organisms and development and diverged from there there would be no "fist people" There would be gradual changes over many thousands of years.
To understand why I say Adam and Eve have been proven impossible, I'll go through a thought exercise on genetic diversity. If you were Adam, you would have kids with Eve. Those kids would have to marry each other, since there are no other humans on earth. Their children would in turn have you marry one another. Now if the Bible is true, people lived much longer and would have been able to have more children, but that doesn't create genetic diversity. How much inbreeding would take place before the human race ended? Look up the numbers needed to create a viable population and you will see exactly why both Adam and Eve and Noah's family being the only people on earth is impossible.
The Bible says water covered the whole earth. By equivocating that it could have only been one area, you are agreeing that the Bible has been proven wrong about something.
We can tell there wasn't a catastrophic global flood because you can see historical records of events. I won't go through all of them but geological records and species and genetic diversity both show that a global flood did not happen.
you say adam and eve is impossible. wtf. you Usally seem logicalish PyschDave, but saying the idea of first humans is impossible is impossible. there needs to be a first.
how has science disproven adam and eve? were there not first humans???
and Noah's flood can't really be proven or disproven. if was a long time ago. the flood may have not been the whole earth, but only the area people lived. you can't disprove that an area of earth was flooded a long time ago. saying you know what weather was going on at that time is absurd.
Science has thoroughly disproven Noah's flood.
Science has disproven Adam and Eve.
These are two fundamental stories that have been proven to be impossible.
That is definitely not true. Science hasn't desproven anything in the bible. if have send me a link because from what I research nothing real. Nothing completely true. I know complete athiest, scientist who completely went deep into trying to disprove these things and turned into a Christan. I'm dead serious. I believe science in a way but I'm not dependent on it. I use it to make sure I'm not ignorant on my belief. I want to become a scientist and I'm telling you. there has been a lot of things in the past and present and probably the future that scientist have to correct because they made a misake. I think for my own and I don't completely lean on a bunch of scientist who did this themselves as well as the bible. I'm pretty on my own and I like to make sure.
Alex we went through that in your debate. i have no reason to wish that god doesn't exist. life would be easier if he did. the cold hard facts don't support religion or his existence. therefore I have no choice but to not believe. to do otherwise is irrational.
darkderpy of course there is no solid evidence. religion is based around blind faith. the whole point is that there is no proof. if there were it wouldn't be religion. but science has disproven large chunks of religious teachings. (heliocentricity, creationism, Noah's flood, etc). these are not proof that God does not exist, but it should make any rational person doubt the authenticity of the book the religion is based on. and since there is no evidence supporting religion, it should cause a rational person to not believe.
I disagree. It is easy to imagine, but hard to proof. They need undisputed proof.
I don't understand. Scientist are saying there has to be a reason to why something happened and all of a sudden they feel like there was no reason this happen. It just happened. Everything just popped out of no where. In a way that's as magical as God creating the universe. The universe creating itself? xD
What Evidence? There's no solid evidence against God lol. Don't give me an persuasion there's just theory's and what not that people believe on instantly.
I made a debate a while back that the main reason was as St Augustine put it "He who does not believe in God has some reason for God to not exist" some atheists may not wish for God because they can't have something that they can't imagine/see.
No, God is pretty easy to imagine. That's why we've had religion since the dawn of time. God is the manifestation of our need to know. It is the explanation to the questions of why? And how? In the absence of scientific knowledge.
Modern science has taken the place of God as the answer to such questions however. We can now imagine a universe without a God. Before Darwin there were relatively few atheists. You had more deists (meaning they believed in a prime mover, but not a personal god). Now, with the ever expanding knowledge of modern evolution and astrophysics, it is becoming easier and easier to see how God is simply a manifestation of our fear of the unknown. Most theists these days even relegate God to a "God of the gaps". Meaning God exists as the explanation for questions science has not yet definitively proven. It's only a matter of time until we can close the last two big gaps (abiogenesis and the big bang) and eventually relegate God to the history books.
religion is easy to imagine. a benevolent being smiling down on you and having a plan for you. it's comforting. people don't believe because it doesn't make any sense. because there isn't any evidence to support it while evidence mounts against it.