Existence of God

[Dragohunter]

2 arguements to prove the existence of God

Here is an ontological arguement I came up with.

There are two types of conditions to be proven.

The Human Ability to Prove. And the Potential to be Proven

I'll say there's an invisible Genie on my hand. I can see it and I know it exists. You don't know if it exists and can not prove nor disprove the idea.

But what if you had a machine that allows you to look into my perspective? Can you see then see it? Yes. Is it most likely such machine would be invented? No. But if you had one, you could see it. The point is, although you can not prove by the limited intellegence humans provide, there must be a potential state to be able to be proven if it exists.

1. Skeptists say you can not prove or disprove God

2. What exists must have the potential to be proven.

3. Therefore, if God exists, it must be able to be proven.

4. Skeptists are wrong.

5. You can only disprove by proving or coming up with another idea

6. There is nothing in the universe that can disprove the existence of a deity *

7. Therefore, the potential state of a God to be disproven does not exist.

8. So a potential state of a God to be proven must exist.

9. Thefore, God must exist.

* If you really think about it, nothing can disprove God. You can say you can not prove God (which I disagree) but nothing (science) can not completely disprove God's existence in reality, even if not in ours.

A Teological arguement

1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.

2. Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.

3. God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.

4. Therefore, God exists.

Or in simplier terms:

1. Complexity implies a designer.

2. The universe is highly complex.

3. Therefore, the universe has a Designer.

You may think this is an excuse to fill in to explain the complex natures of reality. It is not. Where did all the natures of science, mathematics, morals, philsophy, and everything else come from? Why do they exists? How do they exist? Assume God does not exist. So it came from nothing? People say that there is an explanation for everything and we just didn't find it yet. Like what? Science can only lead so far. Let's go to theoretical physics for example. The String theory (now M-Theory) is called the Theory of Everything. Something to explain all physics. It combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics and also explains why the universe is so perfectly fine tuned. This physicists say, explains everything if proven. Why everything in physics works the way it does. Does it really explain everything? No. Why? Why is String Theory the way it is? Where did the laws of String Theory come from? Why do the laws of String Theory come from why it is? You'd go infinitely, finding an explanation for the preceding explanation to find the answer of everything. But everytime you think you came up with the Answer to Everything, you find that there is another answer to why that answer is the way it is. If everything can be answered by our perspective of scientific reality, you'd find yourself going infinitely finding an explanation for the preceding explanation without finding the final answer.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Dragohunter

[Cradle of Fish]

A Teological arguement

1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.

2. Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.

3. God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.

4. Therefore, God exists.

Just because you don't know how it could have arisen, doesn't mean it couldn't have. The argument from ignorance doens't convince anyone. Complexity builds up from simplicity, it's true all over the universe. Purpose evolves naturally, and a lot of things are given purpose despite not really having it. For example, the sun's purpose is to provide light and heat to the earth, which is incorrect, the sun is a star that gives off light and heat, and the earth was formed from the disc of dust out of which the sun was formed. There is also nothing that is objectively beautiful, we created the ideas of beauty, and it has been shown that ideas of beauty change over time. A sunset is a natural occurence, not something put there to entertain us.

You make the mistake of claiming that evolution is random or accidental, in fact it's quite the opposite, it just happens to be blind.

1. Complexity implies a designer.

2. The universe is highly complex.

3. Therefore, the universe has a Designer.

Complexity doesn't imply a designer, and even if it did, it doesn't imply a sentient, intelligent, or benevolent designer. And complexity, once again, builds up from simplicity. The universe has come to be the shape it is now through a cycle of death and birth of stars.

You may think this is an excuse to fill in to explain the complex natures of reality. It is not. Where did all the natures of science, mathematics, morals, philsophy, and everything else come from? Why do they exists? How do they exist? Assume God does not exist. So it came from nothing?

You cannot group philosophy and morals in with mathematics and science. To an extraterrestrial on the other side of the universe, one plus one is still two and gravity is still the ruling force in a system of stars and planets. However, morality might be the polar opposite of our own there, it might be morally right for them to terminate a child who is deformed or seriously ill, to protect the integrity of the tribe. Philosophy might be different too, maybe they have an acceptance of death quite unlike our fear of death, and therefore never had any ideas of the afterlife, or the meaning of a limited life. We don't know what it came from, and neither do you. Appealing to a god of the gaps doesn't answer the question.

People say that there is an explanation for everything and we just didn't find it yet. Like what? Science can only lead so far. Let's go to theoretical physics for example. The String theory (now M-Theory) is called the Theory of Everything. Something to explain all physics. It combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics and also explains why the universe is so perfectly fine tuned.

It isn't called the theory of everything, it's an attempt of reaching a grand unified theory, and it has some evidence for it, but it also makes some great assumptions about what else there is out there that hasn't been discovered yet.

This physicists say, explains everything if proven. Why everything in physics works the way it does. Does it really explain everything? No. Why? Why is String Theory the way it is? Where did the laws of String Theory come from? Why do the laws of String Theory come from why it is? You'd go infinitely, finding an explanation for the preceding explanation to find the answer of everything. But everytime you think you came up with the Answer to Everything, you find that there is another answer to why that answer is the way it is. If everything can be answered by our perspective of scientific reality, you'd find yourself going infinitely finding an explanation for the preceding explanation without finding the final answer.

First, I've never heard of a physicist, even an ardent supporter of string theory, say that it'll explain everything. If it were proven, it would be a massive step forward in our understanding of how the universe works, but no doubt it would open up many doors with many more questions, and we will just keep trying to solve them. Who says we have to go infinite? Nobody knows how deep the rabbit hole goes, not me, not you, not even Morpheus, we could be a few discoveries away from reaching it, or we could be a billion generations away from reaching it. Either we'll reach it or we'll die out. We do not know what we will find, and making assumptions now is arrogant.

[__Kratos__]

How's this thread different from your other one?

3 Arguements supporting the existence of God

[churchanddestroy]

2 arguements to prove the existence of God

Here is an ontological arguement I came up with.

There are two types of conditions to be proven.

The Human Ability to Prove. And the Potential to be Proven

I'll say there's an invisible Genie on my hand. I can see it and I know it exists. You don't know if it exists and can not prove nor disprove the idea.

But what if you had a machine that allows you to look into my perspective? Can you see then see it? Yes. Is it most likely such machine would be invented? No. But if you had one, you could see it. The point is, although you can not prove by the limited intellegence humans provide, there must be a potential state to be able to be proven if it exists.

1. Skeptists say you can not prove or disprove God

2. What exists must have the potential to be proven.

3. Therefore, if God exists, it must be able to be proven.

4. Skeptists are wrong.

5. You can only disprove by proving or coming up with another idea

6. There is nothing in the universe that can disprove the existence of a deity *

7. Therefore, the potential state of a God to be disproven does not exist.

8. So a potential state of a God to be proven must exist.

9. Thefore, God must exist.

* If you really think about it, nothing can disprove God. You can say you can not prove God (which I disagree) but nothing (science) can not completely disprove God's existence in reality, even if not in ours.

Ok, well, lets start from the top, shall we? First of all, its skeptics, not skeptists. Second of all, just because something could potentially be shown to exist, under a certain set of circumstances, does not mean that it exists. Your scenario is purely hypothetical. You might as well say, "well, there potentially could be a God". Third of all, you need to support your premises better before you make a conclusion. Skeptics are wrong? How? You haven't actually shown that God exists. You're using circular logic by saying if something exists it has the potential to be proven. God exists because he has the potential to is circular because you are starting out with the preconceived notion that God exists, therefore he has the potential to be proven, because he has the potential he must exist. You also have to support premise 6. better. Why is there nothing in the universe that could disprove God? You need to back that up, and its already wrong because Philosophy and Reason can do that. There are philosophical arguments that can prove God wrong.

Also, it is an Argument from Ignorance to say that you can't prove God doesn't exist, so God must exist. Its not logical.

I'm not an Atheist, I actually believe in God, I'm just telling you that this is not a strong argument for God. Sorry.

A Teological arguement

1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.

2. Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.

3. God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.

4. Therefore, God exists.

Or in simplier terms:

1. Complexity implies a designer.

2. The universe is highly complex.

3. Therefore, the universe has a Designer.

Complexity does not imply design. We do not have a designed universe and an undesigned one to compare and contrast, therefore it is illogical to assume that we are 'designed', when we don't have 'undesigned' humans to compare ourselves to. The teleological argument is also not a good argument for God. Here are some formal counterarguments to the teleological argument.

You may think this is an excuse to fill in to explain the complex natures of reality. It is not. Where did all the natures of science, mathematics, morals, philsophy, and everything else come from? Why do they exists? How do they exist? Assume God does not exist. So it came from nothing? People say that there is an explanation for everything and we just didn't find it yet. Like what? Science can only lead so far. Let's go to theoretical physics for example. The String theory (now M-Theory) is called the Theory of Everything. Something to explain all physics. It combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics and also explains why the universe is so perfectly fine tuned. This physicists say, explains everything if proven. Why everything in physics works the way it does. Does it really explain everything? No. Why? Why is String Theory the way it is? Where did the laws of String Theory come from? Why do the laws of String Theory come from why it is? You'd go infinitely, finding an explanation for the preceding explanation to find the answer of everything. But everytime you think you came up with the Answer to Everything, you find that there is another answer to why that answer is the way it is. If everything can be answered by our perspective of scientific reality, you'd find yourself going infinitely finding an explanation for the preceding explanation without finding the final answer.

You're putting words in peoples mouths. No physicist or scientist would ever assume that the could explain everything. Also, most scientists understand that science doesn't explain everything. Logic and reason can explain many of the things science cannot. A good scientist would understand that science has its limitations.