Disproving god with the laws of logic

[Jamal_a_Man]

also, the very fact that you think you fully understand most of what is surrounding us, such as the oceans and nature in general then you must be very ignorant. science has only discovered little in comparison to what is still left to understand.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Yep, I sure am ignorant about most stuff in our Universe, the point is that I claim ignorance instead of a pretense of knowledge like how most theists do.

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

Something rediculous is deserving of ridicule.

These arguments aren't new. Some are even hundreds of years old, only updated as technology progresses. In my opinion, the "pretty trees" argument is by far the lamest religious argument for god.

ok, i think i am going to have to say it again;

1) i am not familliar to the whole religous and god debates.
2) my first post was merely my own perspective and not fact.

now if you can process these two things through your little brain, you will come to the understanding that i was only sharing my own opinions. belittling my opinion is as useful as banging ur head against the wall i.e. no use.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Something rediculous is deserving of ridicule.

Good grief, people! The word is "ridiculous"!

 

[nonbeliever_92]

wow, that was unnesscessariy aggressive

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

Yep, I sure am ignorant about most stuff in our Universe, the point is that I claim ignorance instead of a pretense of knowledge like how most theists do.

at no point did i say that your perspective is a wrong one, all i said is that the information you have gathered over time has brought you to understand or translate the signs infront of you in a certain way, to which i said was fine.

regarding my point of view, i didnt say it was the correct one, all i said was that it was my own perspective according to how i translate things. Shunting one idea or possibility completely only limits your own perspective.

i think that is quite clear.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

at no point did i say that your perspective is a wrong one, all i said is that the information you have gathered over time has brought you to understand or translate the signs infront of you in a certain way, to which i said was fine.

regarding my point of view, i didnt say it was the correct one, all i said was that it was my own perspective according to how i translate things. Shunting one idea or possibility completely only limits your own perspective.

i think that is quite clear.

Well neither did I so... I was simply stating that I am ignorant, but I am not ignorant of my own ignorance, nor do I ignore my ignorance and hide it with an unjustified label.

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

ok ignore all that. i think we may have just been misunderstanding each other.

can i ask you if you believe in the big bang theory?

 

[freethinker44]

Come on man, this is a debate forum, if you present your "side" of an arugment, it is automatically presented as fact and claims anything contradictory to it false. Even though you might not have said this or menat it that way, the place you said it in dictates something else. I don't present my ideas as my own in a debate forum, I present them as fact, and then defend them against all challenges or ghange my mind. That's what a debate is.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

ok ignore all that. i think we may have just been misunderstanding each other.

can i ask you if you believe in the big bang theory?

yes i do why?

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

Yep, I sure am ignorant about most stuff in our Universe, the point is that I claim ignorance instead of a pretense of knowledge like how most theists do.

Come on man, this is a debate forum, if you present your "side" of an arugment, it is automatically presented as fact and claims anything contradictory to it false. Even though you might not have said this or menat it that way, the place you said it in dictates something else. I don't present my ideas as my own in a debate forum, I present them as fact, and then defend them against all challenges or ghange my mind. That's what a debate is.

well im not here to debate, debate lead to dispute and that leads no where. discussion is better for the mind. imo.

n e ways, if you believe in the big bang then the expansion of the universe is something which u must believe in also, and has been proven.

what is interestign is that i read a passage in the quran saying:

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?

This refers to the universe begining at one point and then being expanded.
agreeing with modern theories today.

another one of interest was:

“We have built the heaven with might, and We are expanding it.”

referign to the expansion of the universe.back in those days, space was refered to as heaven, which u probably already know, i just thought i might add it.

thoughts?

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

ok, well i thought it was quite relevant, however, avoiding the issue will be no use to anyone.

 

[freethinker44]

It was humans who developed the big bang theory. It was humans who discovered the expansion of the universe. Humans inspired and wrote the quran, why would it matter if one human said it instead of another. Science in the quran or any holy book is unimpressive to me.

The atom was conceptualized 1000 years before the quran was ever written, does this mean that ancient greek mythology is the one true religion because they knew about the atom? No, it doesn't. The same applies with the quran, bible, or the tanakh or any other religions books. Men wrote them, men develope science.

And really our present understanding of science surpasses that of the quran by leaps and bounds, does this mean that we unstand the universe more than god who supposedly created it? Probably not, it probably means that whoever wrote the quran had limited or perhaps exeptional understanding of science considering their technological advancement at the time, or it could mean they just had a lucky guess.

 

[rageoftyrael]

i'm going with lucky guess. not only that, but these phrases are often taken however someone wants to. i've seen people take the same verse from the bible, and make it mean to opposite things. and if you look at it, it makes sense both ways.

i will say though that you seem to be taking two verses and misconstruing there meaning. while i will agree it is possible that is what they mean, it would seem more likely that the more obvious meanings is actually the meanings. for example, the verse “Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?" would seem as if the most obvious way of taking this is that they seperated heaven from earth, like it says? it doesn't say anything about expansion, merely a splitting of the two. the other verse “We have built the heaven with might, and We are expanding it." seems to obviously saying that they basically made heaven through battle, and through battle are taking more, which still has nothing to do with expansion.

I'm not saying they couldn't be taken that way, it just seems like a stretch, from theists trying to justify their beliefs for which there is no justification. it's been said before, but i'll say it here anyway. you are supposed to take facts, and come to a conclusion. not take a conclusion, and look for facts to back it up.

 

[Venatoris]

I'm sorry, but i gotta call you out on that one venatoris. to say that believing in a god for which there is no evidence is not less valid than not believing in a god for which there is no evidence is just.... not thinking. you must feel this way to an extent, being agnostic. cause after all, being agnostic is just one short step from being athiest. oh snap, i said it!

Lol, Penn Jillette said something similar about agnostics but he wasn't as polite in doing so. This is just not true, at least in my case. I'm not an agnostic because I don't want to fully commit to atheism. For me it boils down to one point. Atheists don't have an answer for the origin of the universe and theists don't have proof. Both however think it is necessary to take a firm stance on god but I don't. If god truly had a set of rules for me to live by, I believe he would tell me himself and not pass them on via the longest game of 'telephone' known to man(things tend to get mixed up that way). And as for the atheist view I'll just quote Carl Sagan "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". So I accept that a god may have created the universe but I definitely don't believe what people tell me he wants. I also accept that the universe may have come into itself in another fashion. My question is how does a stance one way or the other improve my life? It doesn't. I try to be a good person either way because that is who I am. I don't know the truth and by claiming that I do I'm not only lying to others, I'm lying to myself. Both views are equally valid in my mind insofar as to say that neither one has a solid argument against the other.

Tell me Thief or Venatoris, what is a god to you? What distinguishing quality must a god show you or possess before you consider it to be a god? Basically, what is your definition of a god? And you can define a god, you do it every day. You have some minimal definition that you use to judge whether every day things and people around you are not gods, what are those qualities that separate god from everything else? Please be specific.

This is an easy question for me. The only quality I would attribute to a god would be the ability to create the universe. That's it. I don't think he can see the future nor do I think he would want people to worship him or follow specific rules. The only personality trait I could imagine for a god would be curiosity. He creates the universe and sets all the pieces into motion to find out what will happen. As for separating god from everything else I must assume that he would be incorporeal in form. I have no justification for this but it seems to make sense. I hope that answers your question, if not let me know.

 

[Thief]

I agree with Venatoris, to some degree.

I am willing to credit God with the creation, that the singularity did exist, and God did it.

Just a note......
A few postings back, I made note of my i.q.
This was done as someone had made slight of my abilities.
I quickly noted, it didn't really matter.
And it doesn't.

Someone posted as if, I might take it personally.
I actually don't care.

I make this note now because.....
This is the type of rebuttal that has brought this thread to such length.
Instead of rebuttal to the point and purpose, the counter is aimed at a detail that did not need to be countered.

In more recent postings the participants are claiming, abilities of debate.
If this were true this thread would have died a along time ago.

Believing that God created the singularity, will never be a matter of science.
Science doesn't possess what it takes to go there.
Still it remains, the ability to consider and arrive at a decision.
Cause and effect should prevail.
Cause and effect cannot be separated, and that singularity had a cause.
I call Him the Almighty.

 

[rageoftyrael]

well, thief, that's just pointless. essentially, you haven't the slightest clue how this was all started, or whether it was started, but you've decided to call it god. well guess what? you know what started the universe? a tick! why not? it was a tick, and i have faith it was a tick. so, are you desperate to call the creator of the universe almighty now?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Believing that God created the singularity, will never be a matter of science.

Indeed - baseless speculation is not scientific.

Science doesn't possess what it takes to go there.

Indeed - science doesn't deal with baseless speculation.

Cause and effect cannot be separated, and that singularity had a cause.

Baseless speculation.

I call Him the Almighty.

Baseless speculation with a name.

 

[Thief]

You can call Him...'Speculation'...if you want to.

 

[Venatoris]

Thief- I have to applaud your tenacity. I won't disagree with your opinion but I will offer a pointer. Stop using the cause and effect argument. It doesn't hold true to what you're saying unless you can put forth a cause for the existence of god.