Log in

View Full Version : 2 questions that suggest the existance of god


OMr_duckO
2006-02-04, 01:56
1. What is the purpose of life?

2. In the beggining before the big bang happened, how did the matter get there? Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. It must have come from somewhere.

Rust
2006-02-04, 02:03
1. Ignorance, therefore god.

2. Ignorance, therefore god.

Also, you cannot possibly begin to say that "Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed", neither before, during, or "shortly" after the Big Bang.

That law is only valid in the universe it currently describes and the universe was hardly as we see it now, before, during or shortly after the Big Bang.

Fundokiller
2006-02-04, 03:11
quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

1. What is the purpose of life?

what we make it

2. In the beggining before the big bang happened, how did the matter get there? Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. It must have come from somewhere.

god of the gaps proves nothing, you misquoted the first law of thermodynamics, and there is a branch of science dedicated to finding out the origins of the universe.



Frankly you do a poor job of defending christianity.

Rust
2006-02-04, 03:20
quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

...you misquoted the first law of thermodynamics...

Not really. There is a law of conservation of matter (i.e. mass). The thing is, it only applies to closed systems, and more importantly, it cannot be applied during the Big Bang at all.

Fundokiller
2006-02-04, 03:23
k

What now?

OMr_duckO
2006-02-04, 04:18
When i said what is the purpose of life, i meant why are we here? For what reason? Or anything else that exists for that matter.

Fundokiller
2006-02-04, 04:22
there is no reason but the laws of physics etc.

There is no designer.

OMr_duckO
2006-02-04, 04:35
quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

there is no reason but the laws of physics etc.

There is no designer.

Nice explanation you douchebag. How does the laws of physics even apply to that question? Everything in the universe is designed to adapt and survive. But still it confuses me on why everything is there, for what reason?

Sgt. Lag
2006-02-04, 04:38
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Not really. There is a law of conservation of matter (i.e. mass).



Matter can't be created or destroyed?

I agree with Rust; ignorance/looking for answers in the wrong places creates a belief in a higher power.

Rust
2006-02-04, 04:39
quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

Nice explanation you douchebag. How does the laws of physics even apply to that question? Everything in the universe is designed to adapt and survive. But still it confuses me on why everything is there, for what reason?

The question was already answered in the beginning: "Ignorance, therefore god". It is a logical fallacy to claim that because we lack the knowledge of the reason for our existence (which you have yet to show is even necessary to possess), it must mean that a god exists.

Thus, your questions don't suggest that at all.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-04-2006).]

Rust
2006-02-04, 04:42
quote:Originally posted by Sgt. Lag:

Matter can't be created or destroyed?



Nope. In a closed system the amount of mass will remain constant. The mass may change phase, molecules can react to create other molecules, et cetera, but the amount of mass in the system as a whole will remain the same.

OMr_duckO
2006-02-04, 04:44
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The question was already answered in the beginning: "Ignorance, therefore god". It is a logical fallacy to claim that because we lack the knowledge of the reason for our existence (which you have yet to show is even necessary to possess), it must mean that a god exists.

Thus, your questions don't suggest that at all. You were wrong. Done.

How is it a fallacy?!

Rust
2006-02-04, 04:56
Because us not knowing a reason for our existence does not imply that a god exists. It could very well be that there is no reason to our existence, or that we already do know the reason, or that a god doesn't exist or that the reason has absolutely nothing to do with a god, or any other scenario.

Thus, it's logically vacuous to say it suggests the existence of a god, it does not.

Beta69
2006-02-04, 05:04
1) Life may not have a "purpose." Based on a purely naturalistic evolutionary stand point the purpose of life is to create a better world for our children so our genes/beliefs can thrive with them.

I can draw a squiggle on a piece of paper, the squiggle doesn't need a purpose for it to exist.



2) Common misconceptions.

Before the big bang.

The big bang created time, so there really is no such thing as "before" time. That's like asking what's north of the north pole. When you start getting very close to 0 (the beginning of the big bang) things start breaking down, and you reach the quantum world and beyond. We really don't know what happened at the very very first moments but the majority of our current science doesn't really apply, so anything could have happened.

Matter can't be created or destroyed.

Another common misconception. matter is created and destroyed all the time. Virtual particles are constantly popping in and out of existence. They don't violate any standard laws because it happens on the quantum scale.

OMr_duckO
2006-02-04, 05:27
quote:2) Common misconceptions.

Before the big bang.

The big bang created time, so there really is no such thing as "before" time. That's like asking what's north of the north pole. When you start getting very close to 0 (the beginning of the big bang) things start breaking down, and you reach the quantum world and beyond. We really don't know what happened at the very very first moments but the majority of our current science doesn'

really apply, so anything could have happened.

Many things point to that quantum physics is flawed first of all. The law of conservation applies to both matter and energy. Therefore, you are full of shit. The matter is only being transformed and not created and destroyed all the time. It is really mind-boggling when you think about all of this of how the world was created. We simply cannot know. Now that i think about it, i see that it is impossible to know such a thing.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

1) Life may not have a "purpose." Based on a purely naturalistic evolutionary stand point the purpose of life is to create a better world for our children so our genes/beliefs can thrive with them.

I can draw a squiggle on a piece of paper, the squiggle doesn't need a purpose for it to exist.

That still does not answer my question. What you said about drawing the squiggle on a piece of paper is just a choice we humans make with our free-will. Life has to have a purpose. Like i said that every living thing in the universe is designed to adapt. What role do us humans play in that. If the earth is really a living organism than it would try to destroy us because we are what is causing its destruction.

Beta69
2006-02-04, 05:50
quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

Many things point to that quantum physics is flawed first of all.

you are full of shit. The matter is only being transformed and not created and destroyed all the time.

Ahahaha.

Oh no an answer to my question, quick call it all BS. Ahh, that's better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Classical laws don't apply very well to the quantum world.

You amazingly ignored the section about the majority of laws breaking down when you get close to the beginning of the big bang (good job).

quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

ife has to have a purpose.

Really?

Prove it.

Viraljimmy
2006-02-04, 10:23
Meaning and purpose are for us to decide.

They don't exist on their own.

You can't discover the "meaning of life".

All you can do is make one up.

Hate Crimez
2006-02-04, 11:01
quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

1. What is the purpose of life?

2. In the beggining before the big bang happened, how did the matter get there? Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. It must have come from somewhere.



1. a)Life may have a purpose, but which God decided what it was?.

b) Maybe there is no purpose.

c) Maybe purpose is only a word developed by humans and there is something beyond purpose which the human mind cannot fathom.

2. a) Your are baseing this suggestion on humanity's limited understanding of science, too you "matter" and the "the big bang" are just words, you don't realize how little we have discovered compared to how much more their is to know.

b)Lets use your arguement against you, if it was God who created matter then who created God, "created" is just another human word that we can only begin to understand.

Language is funny that way, it is almost ahead of us in that some of the words we have no one actually has the entire idea.

Elephantitis Man
2006-02-04, 13:55
I think the OP's questions were a poor attempt to suggest what he wanted to. I have a question, my notion not to 'suggest the existence of God', but a simple inquiry on human nature.

Let's go back in time. Back to the very earliest of man. The first homo sapiens (probably somewhere in norther Africa, correct?). They have droughts, they see volcanoes explode, people die, people ask questions. Where did man originally come up with the concept of a God out of nowhere? What would give man an inclination that there is some being or beings that have control over something he doesn't? Was it intuitive? If so, would that not suggest the existence of a God?

My point is, look at what 'God' is said to be composed of: omnipotent, invisible, omnipresent, transcending space and time. But what examples of these has man ever seen? Where did the ideas of these kinds of power come from? Where did the idea of God come from, if not a knowledge we are born with, that would be there for a reason?

King_Cotton
2006-02-04, 18:02
quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Meaning and purpose are for us to decide.

They don't exist on their own.

You can't discover the "meaning of life".

All you can do is make one up.

For yourself. Everyone has a different road to reaching the ultimate goal (peace and contentment).

Do you really think there is a precise universal answer to that question? Life is what you make it, and you take off from there. You can't follow one man's road and expect it to take you exactly where you want to go, you have to find what suits yourself, what really makes you happy. Something you have to work for and fight for and strive for constantly. To struggle. Man loves struggle, we thrive in toil. We're the most resilient bacteria when it comes to struggle. Press a brick upon us and push back with twice the amount of force. We hate the attacker, but damn, we love the fight.

RandomHero
2006-02-04, 18:10
Read up on the Dust Speck Theory.

Digital_Savior
2006-02-04, 18:52
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. Ignorance, therefore god.

2. Ignorance, therefore god.

Christianity says...

1. Ignorance, therefore God.

2. Ignorance, therefore God.

Atheism says...

1. Ignorance, therefore no God.

2. Ignorance, therefore no God.

Which is better ?

One is self-serving, and the other self-less.

One leads us to purpose, and one does not.

Digital_Savior
2006-02-04, 18:59
quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

I think the OP's questions were a poor attempt to suggest what he wanted to. I have a question, my notion not to 'suggest the existence of God', but a simple inquiry on human nature.

Let's go back in time. Back to the very earliest of man. The first homo sapiens (probably somewhere in norther Africa, correct?). They have droughts, they see volcanoes explode, people die, people ask questions. Where did man originally come up with the concept of a God out of nowhere? What would give man an inclination that there is some being or beings that have control over something he doesn't? Was it intuitive? If so, would that not suggest the existence of a God?

My point is, look at what 'God' is said to be composed of: omnipotent, invisible, omnipresent, transcending space and time. But what examples of these has man ever seen? Where did the ideas of these kinds of power come from? Where did the idea of God come from, if not a knowledge we are born with, that would be there for a reason?

All very good points...

...which are negated by the Bible.

Digital_Savior
2006-02-04, 19:06
quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

there is no reason but the laws of physics etc.

There is no designer.

You fail to explain how physics came to be in the first place.

Source
2006-02-04, 19:09
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You fail to explain how physics came to be in the first place.

Everyone here as failed to explain how God became in the first place.

Rust
2006-02-04, 20:02
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Christianity says...

1. Ignorance, therefore God.

2. Ignorance, therefore God.

Atheism says...

1. Ignorance, therefore no God.

2. Ignorance, therefore no God.

Which is better ?

One is self-serving, and the other self-less.

One leads us to purpose, and one does not.

1. That is completely incorrect.

Atheism does not use the fallacy of 'Ignorance therefore no god'. A lack of belief in a god does not equal saying that no god exists.

2. Belief in a god is not selfless or self-serving in and of itself. Nor is "belief in no god" self-serving or selfless in and of itself. This is another fallacy on your part.

3. The same applies to purpose. You cannot say that atheism is purposeless. That is, yet again, another fallacy on your part.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-04-2006).]

Rust
2006-02-04, 20:05
quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

I think the OP's questions were a poor attempt to suggest what he wanted to. I have a question, my notion not to 'suggest the existence of God', but a simple inquiry on human nature.

Let's go back in time. Back to the very earliest of man. The first homo sapiens (probably somewhere in norther Africa, correct?). They have droughts, they see volcanoes explode, people die, people ask questions. Where did man originally come up with the concept of a God out of nowhere? What would give man an inclination that there is some being or beings that have control over something he doesn't? Was it intuitive? If so, would that not suggest the existence of a God?

My point is, look at what 'God' is said to be composed of: omnipotent, invisible, omnipresent, transcending space and time. But what examples of these has man ever seen? Where did the ideas of these kinds of power come from? Where did the idea of God come from, if not a knowledge we are born with, that would be there for a reason?

These are the very same questions hidden inside more elaborate sentences. The fallacies are still in place.

Claiming that just because early humans attributed natural phenomenon to some abstract power, must imply that a god exists is a logical fallacy, the same logical fallacy used in the beginning. There could be countless other explanations, many of which do not require the existence of a god. Thus, that you're ignorant of these explanations, or that you refuse to entertain them is not evidence of anything but the logical fallacies you are using.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-04-2006).]

Beta69
2006-02-04, 20:23
Purpose.

Ignoring for right now the fact that no one has yet to prove life Must have a purpose.

I can draw a squiggle, I am it's creator and God. I did not create it for a purpose, I just did. Just because a God exists doesn't mean life or Human life has a purpose.

Many people see religion giving purpose to their life. People of many different religions see the same thing. Many of these religions are exclusive and believe all other religions are wrong and not created by God. If someone can have a purpose by following a false religion created by man, then God is not required for a purpose.

Thus, a purpose can exist without God and God can exist without giving us a purpose.

Elephantitis Man
2006-02-04, 21:42
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

These are the very same questions hidden inside more elaborate sentences. The fallacies are still in place.

Claiming that just because early humans attributed natural phenomenon to some abstract power, must imply that a god exists is a logical fallacy, the same logical fallacy used in the beginning. There could be countless other explanations, many of which do not require the existence of a god. Thus, that you're ignorant of these explanations, or that you refuse to entertain them is not evidence of anything but the logical fallacies you are using.

Rust, did I make any explanations at all??? NO! I never made any claims regarding the existance or nonexistance of God. I asked where the possible ideas of a God came from in the first place...that's it. I wanted to hear your answer to my questions, not your critique of my suspected motives in asking them. You can't cry 'logical fallacy' on this one, chum. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

UnknownVeritas
2006-02-04, 23:44
Elephantitis Man:

You are arguing for the creative and imaginative capabilities of the human mind, nothing more. Our ability to imagine a being greater than ourselves does not necessitate the existence of said being.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not Descartes that made the assumption that God must exist since we are imperfect beings capable of imagining a 'perfect' being? This is essentially your argument.

The problem here is circular logic.

1) How are we capable of imagining a perfect being?

This perfect being, God, grants us this knowledge from birth.

2) How can we prove that this God exists?

We can imagine a perfect being.

Digital_Savior
2006-02-04, 23:56
quote:Originally posted by Source:

Everyone here as failed to explain how God became in the first place.

A being that is omnipresent, as we understand the Judeo-Christian God to be (according to Himself), does not have a beginning, nor an end.

He has told us that His name is "I AM".

We cannot fathom infinity, so this is not a concept that we can accept easily.

Digital_Savior
2006-02-05, 00:06
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. That is completely incorrect.

Atheism does not use the fallacy of 'Ignorance therefore no god'. A lack of belief in a god does not equal saying that no god exists.

You claim that I (and all Christians) believe in God out of ignorance.

That same ignorance is applied to all of humanity, since you are saying that we lack the information to prove that God exists.

If that is so, then we lack the information to prove He doesn't as well.

I am still correct: atheist's are ignorant.

quote:2. Belief in a god is not selfless or self-serving in and of itself. Nor is "belief in no god" self-serving or selfless in and of itself. This is another fallacy on your part.

Belief in the Judeo-Christian God requires that we deny self, and exist solely for Him. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF SELFLESSNESS.

To act as HIS agent, and not our own. How else can you define that ?

I happen to be Christian, believe in God, and have for a long time. For someone who is a self-professed atheist to tell me what we do or do not believe, and why, is rich.

To be so arrogant that you refuse to even entertain the idea of God is most certainly selfish.

Take, for example, the scientific community. Being so confident in one's own abilities tends to prevent belief in a higher power, thus diminishing their "power".

quote:3. The same applies to purpose. You cannot say that atheism is purposeless. That is, yet again, another fallacy on your part.

I can say it. Whether or not is true is entirely different.

My brain tells me that if we exist for no other reason than what we see with our eyes, feel with our bodies, and think with our minds, there really IS no purpose to our existence. Look around you...when you get past the food, the sex, the work, the school, and everything else we consume our lives with, what else is there, really ?

It's not a fallacy. It's realism.

Fundokiller
2006-02-05, 00:11
as an atheist, my purpose in life is to use my creativity to create programs and songs.

Your purpose might be to lead a good life with your husband and children.

John doe down the road, might want to grow some perfect pumpkins.

we don't need religion to do these things. also, is it really healthy to see yourself as a means to an end?

[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 02-05-2006).]

Clarphimous
2006-02-05, 00:11
quote:Originally posted by Digital Savior:

Belief in the Judeo-Christian God requires that we deny self, and exist solely for Him. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF SELFLESSNESS.

To act as HIS agent, and not our own. How else can you define that ?

I happen to be Christian, believe in God, and have for a long time. For someone who is a self-professed atheist to tell me what we do or do not believe, and why, is rich.

To be so arrogant that you refuse to even entertain the idea of God is most certainly selfish.

Take, for example, the scientific community. Being so confident in one's own abilities tends to prevent belief in a higher power, thus diminishing their "power".

So... hypothetical situation. Suppose all Christians suffer for all eternity in the afterlife, while all the unsaved experience pleasure for all eternity in the afterlife. Would you still be a Christian if you knew that was the result of your choice?

Fundokiller
2006-02-05, 00:24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

read it digital.

on the off chance that you don't i'll include the IPU analogy.

If you didn't believe in the existance of Pink Unicorns, would believers be justified in saying that "you don't know pink unicorns don't exist so your position is as weak as ours".

The fallacy employed by this statement is known as "shifting the burden of proof" and "appealing to lack of proof of the negative" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof (see science and other uses) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_a_negative



I'm not saying that because there is little to no evidence for god that he doesn't exist, I'm just saying because there is little to no proof for god's existance then we are in no way justified for believing that he does.

Rust
2006-02-05, 01:39
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You claim that I (and all Christians) believe in God out of ignorance.

That same ignorance is applied to all of humanity, since you are saying that we lack the information to prove that God exists.

If that is so, then we lack the information to prove He doesn't as well.

I am still correct: atheist's are ignorant.

This is a pathetic attempt at ad hoc pack peddling.

Nobody here is denying that we are ignorant of whether or not a god exists. The point was that you said an atheists concludes that a god does not exist based on his ignorance, which is completely false. An atheist lacks a belief in a god, which does not mean he makes a claim about his existence or non-existence. Thus, you were incorrect in what you said initially.

quote:Belief in the Judeo-Christian God requires that we deny self, and exist solely for Him. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF SELFLESSNESS.

To act as HIS agent, and not our own. How else can you define that ?

I happen to be Christian, believe in God, and have for a long time. For someone who is a self-professed atheist to tell me what we do or do not believe, and why, is rich.

To be so arrogant that you refuse to even entertain the idea of God is most certainly selfish.

Take, for example, the scientific community. Being so confident in one's own abilities tends to prevent belief in a higher power, thus diminishing their "power".

1. I was discussing belief in a god, not "the Judeo-Christian god". Belief in a god does not equate selflessness in and of itself. This renders your reply meaningless since it does not deal with my initial statement, but one which you now changed completely.

2. Denying something you lack a belief in, is not selfish at all. You would have to prove that god exists first in order to even begin to substantiate how that is selfish.

Furthermore, if you do manage to, you will have to deal with the fact that the very lack of belief a atheist professes proves to be hurtful to the atheist (i.e. punishment from god), and thus cannot be considered a selfish act at all!

quote:I can say it. Whether or not is true is entirely different.

My brain tells me that if we exist for no other reason than what we see with our eyes, feel with our bodies, and think with our minds, there really IS no purpose to our existence. Look around you...when you get past the food, the sex, the work, the school, and everything else we consume our lives with, what else is there, really ?

It's not a fallacy. It's realism.

Wrong. It most certainly is a fallacy. "Your brain telling you something" matters nothing. That does not serve to prove, support or substantiate anything. Therefore, if you use that in an attempt to substantiate your baseless assertion, you are committing a fallacy.

Rust
2006-02-05, 01:43
quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Rust, did I make any explanations at all??? NO! I never made any claims regarding the existance or nonexistance of God. I asked where the possible ideas of a God came from in the first place...that's it. I wanted to hear your answer to my questions, not your critique of my suspected motives in asking them. You can't cry 'logical fallacy' on this one, chum. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



Are you telling me you were not implying that a god must exist, when you said:

"What would give man an inclination that there is some being or beings that have control over something he doesn't? Was it intuitive? If so, would that not suggest the existence of a God?"

If you weren't, then you have an atrocious way of showing that.

You implied that because man had an jumped to the conclusion of a god in order to explain those phenomena, it "suggests the existence of a god". That is a logical fallacy. If that was not what you were saying, then I suggest you be more careful in the future, because what you said definitely gives that impression.

... Chum.

Elephantitis Man
2006-02-05, 03:29
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You implied that because man had an jumped to the conclusion of a god in order to explain those phenomena, it "suggests the existence of a god". That is a logical fallacy. If that was not what you were saying, then I suggest you be more careful in the future, because what you said definitely gives that impression.

... Chum.

Point taken...but you still haven't answered the question, Rust.

Are you avoiding it? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

You are arguing for the creative and imaginative capabilities of the human mind, nothing more. Our ability to imagine a being greater than ourselves does not necessitate the existence of said being.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not Descartes that made the assumption that God must exist since we are imperfect beings capable of imagining a 'perfect' being? This is essentially your argument.

The problem here is circular logic.

1) How are we capable of imagining a perfect being?

This perfect being, God, grants us this knowledge from birth.

2) How can we prove that this God exists?

We can imagine a perfect being.

And what if the issue isn't proof? What if it's simply...suggestion? A door of possibility?

What I said regarding our ideas of things such as 'omnipotence' and 'eternal' also relate to empirical thinking as well. According to that train of thought, we know absolutely nothing at birth, tabula rasa. The ideas are undebateable. They are nonsense.

In other words. Noone has ever percieved omnipotence, eternity, or absolute perfection. Therefore, the argument for them is futile, as is any argument against them.

Take the statement: "Jumpagumps are big and mean."

I say, "This is true."

You say, "What? There's no such thing as a 'jumpagump'! Since 'jumpagumps' do not exist, you are wrong."

The problem: Neither of us truly knows what a 'jumpagump' is. You can't say something doesn't exist when you don't even truly know what it is. Or even know what a part of it is. The argument is pointless.

Chums. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 02-05-2006).]

Rust
2006-02-05, 03:36
quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



Point taken...but you still haven't answered the question, Rust.

Are you avoiding it? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)



What question? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

Elephantitis Man
2006-02-05, 04:16
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

What question? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

Rofl. I was just wondering what could have provoked cro-magnon man to point at the volcano and say "It is the gods!". Like, the very first one. Where did they come up with the original concept of supreme beings?

edit: Err...that's an unfair question to ask. Rather, what do you think are some of the possibilities that inspired the original concept of god(s)?

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 02-05-2006).]

Rust
2006-02-05, 04:32
quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



edit: Err...that's an unfair question to ask. Rather, what do you think are some of the possibilities that inspired the original concept of god(s)?



The phenomena they were trying to explain where awesome, powerful events that were unexplainable with any of the knowledge they possesed at the time. Thus, who/what caused that phenomena? An equally awesome, unexplainable and powerful being: a "god".

UnknownVeritas
2006-02-05, 23:03
Elphantitis Man:

So, despite the fact that your argument is clearly in favor of the existence of a God, you are going to cop-out with "God's existence is possible"? Then you go on to say that any debate on the possibility of God is ultimately pointless. Fantastic.

Axiom
2006-02-06, 01:40
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The phenomena they were trying to explain where awesome, powerful events that were unexplainable with any of the knowledge they possesed at the time. Thus, who/what caused that phenomena? An equally awesome, unexplainable and powerful being: a "god".



Great answer....

Elephantitis Man
2006-02-06, 02:58
quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

Elphantitis Man:

So, despite the fact that your argument is clearly in favor of the existence of a God, you are going to cop-out with "God's existence is possible"? Then you go on to say that any debate on the possibility of God is ultimately pointless. Fantastic.

Eh...sorry to disappoint you? http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

I believe in something based on personal experiences and feeling, knowing full well it hasn't and probably never will be scientifically proven true. It's an unknown, when it boils down to it. Modern science suggests that we could all exist without God. Many feel there is one though. Some don't even know what they feel. Logically establishing the possibility that God exists is enough for me.

I have no problem admitting the possibility that there is no God, yet I choose to believe in Him because I feel He exists.

Why is it so difficult for some athiests to admit the possibility that there is a God, yet choose not to believe because science suggests He does not?

Is it because with that possibility present, they can't say they are 'right'?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

UnknownVeritas
2006-02-06, 03:20
Elephantitis Man:

First off, I'm Agnostic, for lack of a better word. I agree that it is entirely possible that a God may exist.

Secondly, I only 'lashed out' like that because you were using Descartes' argument, which is clearly in favor of God's existence. After refuting that argument, you tell me that proving God's existence wasn't what you intended (despite Descartes), and that any debate is therefore pointless. That was a little irritating.

Leviathan569
2006-02-06, 22:59
First question:

The purpose of life is to reproduce itself so it doesn't go extinct.

Second question:

Perhaps we will never know, but that still doesn't prove God exists. Using a fictional dude to explain things science can't explain is stupid.

bloodshotdoll
2006-02-07, 03:43
Christians are not willing to have questions without answers.

There are not always going to be answers for questions.

Atheists accept this.

stupid noob
2006-02-08, 08:54
I had to stop reading this thread because of the sheer ignorance of physics. Matter CANNOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED! This is 6th grade science here people!

And most of you have no clue about the big bang theory, so shut the fuck up.

The one time I visit this forum in over 2 years, and the first thread I see is filled with ignorant bullshit.

Thanks assholes.

UnknownVeritas
2006-02-08, 10:38
^ And you have contributed absolutely nothing. Congratulations.

Pyronos
2006-02-19, 00:28
Look at it this way, if there IS a reason, it's incomprehensible and meaningless to us. If life has meaning, there must be a creator and to assume 'God' speaks/thinks in English, or any language at all, is completely arrogant. Therefore the only question we can really ask is 'is there a purpose?'. This question is, ironically, pointless to ask. If there IS a purpose, the knowledge of this fact is, in of itself, useless (we don't know what the purpose is).

If I draw a circle on paper and tell my friend it has a purpose, he cannot utilise this information in any meaningful or useful way. The most he could do is speculate on what the purpose might be.

This is useless to do, as far as a 'meaning of life' goes, because we'd end up pointlessly speculating an unanswerable question forever.

Also, Descartes argument for the existance of god is flawed. He confuses concept with experience.

Here's an example:

Think of a completely new colour. You can't.

You understand the concept of colour: how it should act, what it should do, it's purpose etc.

It's the same with god. God is supposedly eternal. Descartes' says that because we understand the concept of eternity, something we cannot experience, God must exist. This is untrue. If we could understand eternity and comprehend it, this would prove Descartes' theory. We can't. He loses.

mr. benfield
2006-02-19, 22:13
religion requires faith.

Adorkable
2006-02-19, 23:25
quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

2. In the beggining before the big bang happened, how did the matter get there? Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. It must have come from somewhere.



Most theories involve postulations on where the matter (actually energy) came from. Read a book.