6399 replies to this topic

[Heipmaster]

I don't believe in god. There are just too many questions that need to be answered before I can believe he is real. One of them is Who created him?

[Huang Fei Hong]

Well, I'm actually agnostic but there don't seem to be many arguments against the existence of God so I think I should maybe offer some thoughts (gained from studying philosophy) on the subject.Arguments against the existence of God:First, the Problem of Evil. God is defined as the perfect being. He is Omniscient, Omnipotent and All-benevolent. Thus, He knows the difference between good and evil and knows how to prevent it; He has the power to prevent evil and being all-benevolent (always willing good), God wills to prevent evil. But evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist.(And I also thought that since God, by definition, is the perfect being...he created the world in six days, got tired and had to rest on the seventh day? Sorry, but that doesn't sound like perfection to me)And another point: a lot of you are citing God's existence due to the lack of alternative explanations which seems to me as a pretty shallow argument. If we have no other explanation for our existence, that does not mean that there is not one out there. Ever heard of inductive reasoning?

You (and almost everyone here) have a limited definition of what God is. He isn't necessarily some embodiment of good. All that is really requisite for a deity is to operate beyond the rules which bind the universe and all within it. In fact, he may even encompass the universe, good and evil included. We're not all talking about the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God here. He certainly isn't the only one available to worship.Oh, and thus far I haven't seen anyone beat my arguments on God, so why don't you try taking a crack at me since you don't like everyone else's crap (i.e. blingking [and believe me that's crap]). Let's see how your reasoning matches up against mine. Currently I hold the win button on this topic. None of you have had the balls to try and take it from me yet so don't suddenly act like you can debunk God without going through me.Example of crappy argument for God here:

The fact you're actually here. and try explaining to me why we exist, in a non religious view. before you start, lemme just say, Good Luck.

Now go read the argument crushers here: http://www.dgemu.com...w...353&st=5010

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 03 April 2007 - 06:53 PM.

[Huang Fei Hong]

Woah there, cowboy. All I was trying to do was offer some counterarguments against the existence of God as I felt there was a distinct lack of them - granted, I haven't really looked through much of this thread - so as to balance the scales, as it were. So don't feel the need to have a hissy fit. Plus, I'm well aware that there are multiple conceptions of God but I went ahead and limited it to the Christian God for the sake of argument and due to the fact that it is the most 'mainstream' deity in my little corner of the world and thus the one I am most familiar with. I apologise for my subjectivity but sometimes it is all we can do but to operate within a specific framework.Gawd.

You certainly did next to nil to win the argument you posted for the sake of that's for sure. At least, you (and the rest of these kiddies who think they have some kind of contributing statement that isn't just mindless regurgitation) could have looked through the last few pages before having everything you post be automatically discounted as worthless crap.See, you in particular disappoint me because you had a decently long post, but a good read-through of it tells me you are just weakly reacting to the same crap spouted by juveniles who know no better. I thought that by provoking you a bit you might show some potential but I was again disappointed. You're British, the least you can do is not make your people look as ignorant as the Americans I live among. The fact that you think that limiting your definition of God in a philosophical argument like this would be at all effective was pure foolishness.Unless you don't have anything worthwhile to post to prove me wrong about you, I don't suggest you bother. As to the "lack" of arguments against the existence of God? There are many, you are far outclassed by some of the previous posters like Zennalathas. Until someone comes in who replace his coherence, we'll call this topic as a win in the case for the existence of God.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 03 April 2007 - 07:15 PM.

[Huang Fei Hong]

The problem with your causality argument, Huang, is one I doubt anyone here will read thoroughly enough to point out. Causal chains are relatively undisputed, the trouble is there's nothing saying that the "first cause" was a conscious being, which is a requirement of the God-figure. According to your argument the first cause of existence could simply be a single action which, while lying outside the realm of the science of our universe, is not the conscious being we associate with God. While I can accept one may adopt a liberal definition of what God is, I think the most basic requirement will always be that He holds a consciousness of some kind.

I was actually prepared for that bit. Traditionally, we view the laws that govern this universe as by themselves standing without a need for causality. However, the question to ask now is, why are the laws so? Were we to include universal laws as finite and contingent beings then the possibility that an unconscious first cause may give rise to all that does exist as the complexity of implementing the laws of physics certainly outweighs the single act of sparking the Big Bang. The concept of intelligent design would thus be made much more valid as creating a fully functional system of operational tenets for a grand machine such as the universe shows proof toward a conscious mind at work.

And exactly what proof is there that a god/gods exist? Do share your infinite knowledge.

Yet another example of someone who doesn't read enough before opening his big mouth.http://www.dgemu.com...w...353&st=5010Read my posts you nitwit.Logical deduction and induction is proof enough.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 03 April 2007 - 08:47 PM.

[Huang Fei Hong]

Not really. It shows proof of things evolving and adapting to the environment.

You seem to be talking about biology. That's trumped by physics. Have a nice day.

Yeah, sure. Everything has a cause alright. That doesn't mean it has to be some supreme ruler.

Ruler? Not necessarily. Creator? Yes.One can also say that we are governed by the rules of this universe. What's to say that they aren't part of God? You simply seem to be against the idea of being subservient to something greater than you.

Sorry, there's just no proof. I mean... there's no proof it isn't, but come on man, there's just no proof either way.If there was a god, I'm sure it wouldn't want us worshipping it...

Yes, please keep tripping over your words, you sound so coherent right now...not. Physical proof isn't the only way to prove something exists, especially when dealing with something intangible. And please, don't think you can assume anything about God's nature. You can't even ascertain his existence without something smacking you in the face with some hard physical evidence and now you want to play his psychologist and read his mind?

Also, what makes you think God has to be a man? What gives you the right to assume anything then?

Now this is a desperate attempt to find something to attack. Although I use the masculine pronoun for God, that DOESN'T mean I assume him to be male. I just find "he" to be more convenient to type than "he/she/it". I also don't intend to permanently imply that God is an inanimate thing rather than a sapient being by labeling him only as an "it", so "he" is the next best alternative. Find something else to pick on cause you're failing outright.

Oh geeze, sorry for being so desperate. I guess questions are... out of the question. I just figured if it isn't right for me to assume what god/the gods think, then it wouldn't be right for you to assume anything either.Sorry for ruining your day. Lol drama.

No you make my day, because it's stupid people like you who make smart people like me look good. Oh and it's not drama, it's just a lopsided debate.

Yup, anyone who...disagrees with you is surely a moron.

Wow! Someone finally gets it.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 03 April 2007 - 09:52 PM.

[Huang Fei Hong]

I completely agree of course, just testing your wits ;]

And that makes you not a moron. :)Wonderful how the system works doesn't it?Life's so much easier when you're on the winning team (read "MY team"). :)The Cosmological Argument continues to stand firm! Let all challengers come forth.

Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 03 April 2007 - 10:45 PM.