• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tell me why God doesn't exist, and I'll tell you why your'e wrong.

mestupid

Stupid Not Ignorant
Which God do you think exists? There are more than 1000 of them that people have claimed to exist. Ahura Mazda for example. Mithra maybe? Allah? Only people claim that God exists. No God has ever claimed that it exists except in the writings of human beings.
 

Pozessed

Todd
No, I didn't. I quoted Jesus elsewhere to someone who claims to be a Christian, but my way has always been "you reap what you sow," and I don't pretend otherwise.


See above. If you don't like the reception you've gotten, perhaps you should work on how you present yourself.
I avoid drama queens. You have shown yourself to be nothing more. Even though I have tried to make peace with you, my attempts didn't meet your needs and I am ok with that. However you seem to be trying to get a reaction out of me that would resort to hostility of some sort (drama).
Instead just as you feel the need to aggravate anyone who offends your own opinions, I have the right to ignore you and wish you a peaceful ado.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I avoid drama queens. You have shown yourself to be nothing more. Even though I have tried to make peace with you, my attempts didn't meet your needs and I am ok with that. However you seem to be trying to get a reaction out of me that would resort to hostility of some sort (drama).
Instead just as you feel the need to aggravate anyone who offends your own opinions, I have the right to ignore you and wish you a peaceful ado.
Precisely how did you try to make peace? Armchair psychology?
 

Pozessed

Todd
How do you want me to respond to this? Are you expecting me to get mad and rant?

We have been told for years God doesn't exist so much so the world is in turmoil, and my opinionated post about God offends a fellow believer?

How am I making you or anyone else look bad? I am commenting on my own thoughts and beliefs. I'd like to call your offended nature projection.

I am sorry I offended you, please forgive me, God bless.

how is this not?
 
Last edited:

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
My logical thinking started when I ask about the big bang, why did it happen?
ofc, the answer is IDK.

This is how science must answer questions that they don't know the answer to. To answer this question with anything other than, "I don't know." is purely speculative and therefore not science. Additionally, despite the common phrasing, science typically is aimed at answering "how" and not "why". I feel as though I'll end up kicking myself in the hind quarters for stating this, but I think a great many people don't seem to understand the difference between "why" and "how".

The next logical thought should be, could it have been natural or manually influenced? again IDK.

I disagree. This is not my next logical thought. This is not a suitable hypothesis to me. These options you present are not even mutually exclusive and certainly this is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

Next should be, is there signs that would prove this occurrence to be manual or natural?

This is the same as the last statement. I'm not sure why it would need to be rejected twice... but I'm rejecting it twice. Additionally, I would like to point out that proof and I do not get along. I understand that there is a formal definition of proof, and I will accept nothing less for the purposes of discussion, and I don't even accept that for the purposes of my belief.

I have claimed that the Fibonacci sequence seems like a good start to some form of an answer. I also claim that it seems to be more of intellect than nature. Which could add to the possibility that our universe was programmed in some fashion.

I'm sorry, but I have thoroughly examined this particular concept and found it a bit lacking. It isn't even Fibonacci's sequence that occurs within nature, it is the 'golden ratio' which is present regardless of the actual sequence of numbers so long as the equation remains the same. In any case, upon close examination of the myriad websites championing this particular concept, it is easy to see that they are simply manipulating numbers at whim as opposed to simply discovering the pattern in nature. The 'golden ratio' is chiefly present in the growth of plants and is a direct result of optimal leaf placement for maximum available surface area to sunlight. It requires no more intelligence than one could find in the nucleus of any plant cell. The pictures of spirals set next to nautilus shells are exploiting your brain's ability to 'fill-in-the-gaps' of your vision with coherent information as needed. It's an optical illusion. When you actually overlay the Fibonacci spiral with the nautilus shell they do not line up at all. Please test this for yourself as I have.

The next logical question would be to ask is if our existence was proved from natural events or manually influenced.

Again, the same problem occurs. These ideas are not mutually exclusive, nor are they the only available explanations.

Which should be answered "without the evolution of the universe, earthly evolution would not exist and therefore we exist solely to the birth of the universe and the reasons that started it."

It could be answered with lots of answers. This answer, by the way, does not firmly say whether it was nature or manually influenced, or both, or neither. It is clearly not the results of experimentation or observation, and thus is merely speculation. Its fine to speculate and even fine to adopt these speculations as beliefs. But what isn't fine is pretending that they are proofs.

Again, denying God because we cant prove him is illogical to me and my thinking

You haven't made any progress in explaining why you think its illogical. It seems like a logical answer to me, and its not even the answer I believe.

Are you saying that atheists only claim God to not exist only because he doesn't fit into their personal logic instead of a scientific logic?

I'm sorry, but there is only one logic. What I am saying is that atheists by definition do not believe in god, and thus it is logical for them to dismiss any speculation as insufficient to convince them otherwise. Just as it is logical for you to dismiss any speculation to the opposite.

I don't disagree and that's why I have been here making posts, it is also why I titled my post the way I did. I needed other peoples beliefs more than I need my own for some things I am researching.

Listen, I am not the type of fella to pass up a chance to tell someone they are wrong. But your title suggests that anyone who doesn't believe can't possibly have a good reason for it. This is just asking to be ridiculed. You can pretend that you need other people's answers for research if you like, but it sounds a lot more like you need to tell them they are wrong as some sort of defense mechanism. This is often the case when people find themselves doubting their own beliefs. This is what your thread sounds like to me. I imagine I'm not the only one. If you intended to come off like an insecure jerk looking for a genital-measuring contest, then you have succeeded. I actually believe in god and I'm here to argue with you. Think about that.

I understand, I knew it was going to be a challenge when I wrote it.

Impossible was the word I used. Impossible. An exercise in futility.

Honestly I worded it the way I did hoping the people who feel strongest about their beliefs would come in to challenge mine seeing as it would grab attention pretty fast.

They have a word for that. Its called 'trolling'.

I cant change any ones belief unless they choose to change it themselves.

And yet... here you are.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
I am non religious so don't expect quotes from scripture.

I will answer all questions with scientific answers or scientific hypothesis on why a creator exists.

You all seem so closed minded.

Research conscious energy before you doubt what I say. Its is a form of science.

There might be a cream for this.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The one and only event in history that has a reaction without an action? Why is it easier for you to accept that the universe came from nothing instead of having a creation? Don't take that the wrong way, I really want to know why you personally deny a creator.
Don't put words in my mouth.

For one thing, it's not necessary for me to have some alternate theory for me to not accept yours. If I find that my house has been broken into and you tell me "elves did it", I don't have to build a case against some other suspect for me to judge your explanation as suspect.

That being said, let's address your two points here:

- uncaused events happen all the time. They're called quantum fluctuations.

- while we could probably have some quibbles about what "nothing" means in your sentence, if our choices are "the universe came from nothing" or "the universe came from God, who came from nothing", I don't think that adding God into the mix adds any explanatory power whatsoever. However, I'm not sure that those are the only answers; I'm not trying to shoehorn this question into some simplistic box.

True or false we can find the origin of most physical matter?
I can think of a few different ways to take that question, but none are relevant to this discussion, AFAICT. You'll have to explain better what you're driving at.

have you not looked into it?
Looked into what? The Fibonacci sequence? Sure - we covered it in math class.

There is more reason to believe that it was created by intelligence than by nature.
False dichotomy. Intelligence is part of nature.

Evolution and the big bang theorize randomness is the birth of life in our universe
No, they don't. And the processes at work in the universe aren't random anyway, so having "random" (however you're defining this) raw material for these processes doesn't necessarily imply that we should expect a "random" universe now.

yet natural consistencies are far more common than most believe to be true.
Irrelevant.

Even though I may be wrong to believe it's truly Gods signature, does that take away from the realization that it's there?
IOW, "if I'm wrong, does that make me less right?" Well, yeah... it kinda does.


Oh, I'm sorry. What was your point then?
My point was that if we accept claims without valid justification, then we're likely to end up believing a lot of false things.
 

otokage007

Well-Known Member
No actually its intellect, without intellect we couldn't even spell architecture. I never said Gods possibility is anything other than a conscious energy. Which may be a form of intellect.

It's not cool to call it God if it's already called intellect. God should have a definition of its own! Stop redefyning the concept or he will go mad.
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
I can't help you find answers you closed yourself off to.

I will always resort back to God being a conscious energy. If thoughts are energy my theory may not be wrong.
Just because I use magnetic energy as an example, it doesn't mean its the only source of unexplored energies. Not to mention physicists cant explain the origin of magnetism, only how some of its properties work.
I find it absurd and childish to believe that something was created from nothing.

Energy is not a substance: it has nothing to be conscious with.

One needs to be wary of the new-age balderdash that is floating around these days. A statement sounding all sciencey, does not necessarily mean it is valid.
 

Pozessed

Todd
Energy is not a substance: it has nothing to be conscious with.

One needs to be wary of the new-age balderdash that is floating around these days. A statement sounding all sciencey, does not necessarily mean it is valid.

Prove to me energy isn't conscious. Which law of science doesn't seem to have come from consciousness?
Remember the laws of science started with the expansion and evolution of our universe.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I am non religious so don't expect quotes from scripture.

I will answer all questions with scientific answers or scientific hypothesis on why a creator exists.

You all seem so closed minded.

Research conscious energy before you doubt what I say. Its is a form of science.

Conscious energy / fundamental consciousness holds no merit. First of all, there is no reason it needs to exist and it is not inferred, but I will come back to that. If there is some conscious spirit under everything, if consciousness is fundamental, then everything in reality would have to be conscious. Atoms are not conscious, plants are not conscious, stars are not conscious, the Earth is not conscious, the theory has already been shredded.

Nothing implies fundamental consciousness or any other related, new agey, quantum mystical concept. True that some fundamental aspect of reality is logically inferred, but nothing says it is likely or necessary that it is conscious. Consciousness is a product of brain activity, it cannot exist without a brain. Non-physical spirit can not possibly be conscious when consciousness needs a physical cause.

Fundamental aspect of reality? Highly plausible. Fundamental consciousness / spirit? Nothing more than a comforting last grasp at some divine reality.

Also, our big bang is not an uncaused event, nor would that logically be possible. The cause / effect argument is conmpletely valid, but it in NO WAY IMPLIES ANYTHING LIKE FUNDAMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS. People need to start realizing this and accepting it. The belief that there is such a thing is simply explained. It gives us purpose, a shoulder to cry on, infinite love, meaning, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pozessed

Todd
Conscious energy / fundamental consciousness holds no merit. First of all, there is no reason it needs to exist and it is not inferred, but I will come back to that. If there is some conscious spirit under everything, if consciousness is fundamental, then everything in reality would have to be conscious. Atoms are not conscious, plants are not conscious, stars are not conscious, the Earth is not conscious, the theory has already been shredded.

Nothing implies fundamental consciousness or any other related, new agey, quantum mystical concept. True that some fundamental aspect of reality is logically inferred, but nothing says it is likely or necessary that it is conscious. Consciousness is a product of brain activity, it cannot exist without a brain. Non-physical spirit can not possibly be conscious when consciousness needs a physical cause.

Fundamental aspect of reality? Highly plausible. Fundamental consciousness / spirit? Nothing more than a comforting last grasp at some divine reality.

Also, our big bang is not an uncaused event, nor would that logically be possible. The cause / effect argument is conmpletely valid, but it in NO WAY IMPLIES ANYTHING LIKE FUNDAMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS. People need to start realizing this and accepting it. The belief that there is such a thing is simply explained. It gives us purpose, a shoulder to cry on, infinite love, meaning, etc.

If our universe wasn't made out of consciousness the scientific laws used to govern it wouldn't exist. The laws of nature change as the universe needs them to through trial and error. How is that not conscious?
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
If our universe wasn't made out of consciousness the scientific laws used to govern it wouldn't exist. The laws of nature change as the universe needs them to through trial and error. How is that not conscious?

Um, the laws of our universe do not change...
Also, there is no consciousness required for the universe to be as it is. Check out this link: A trip through the Big bang it is scientific rather than new age pseudoscience, which is where I recommend looking for knowledge.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Your post is about a religious god, and only indifference of religion has caused war.
No, my post said this:
History proves Man does far more evil when he believes he has the backing of God than when he thinks he acts alone and can be judged wrong.
I believe someone more famous than me said something of that nature before.
People who think God is on their side do more evil, more frequently, than those who think God is against them. Address that directly.

Who is to say what would have happened if they just tolerated each others beliefs and accepted God as conscious energy?
Because peace will not be achieved through believing a lie, even if everyone agrees to it.
 
Top