The one I always liked was somethign like:

1. The universe is effectively infinite (I know big bang doesn't reflect that but hey ho)

2. In an infinite universe anything possible must have happened

3. God is possible therefore god exists.

Of course I could argue that it is possible that we don't exist therefore we don't QED ... er ... except it appears we do.

Kyu

I think Kyu is right. Applying his point to to the modal ontological argument, if you look at premise 6, it seems perfectly innocent. However, the argument only gives two choices - logically, God has to exist, or logically, God can't exist. You could rewrite premise 6 as 'it is impossible that God doesn't exist' - and in that form, I suspect it would have a lot fewer takers.

However, what I find interesting about this argument is that it does seem to show that God's existence is either necessary or impossible - I just think it fails to show which one it is.

Cleanthes.

Define God here. Because if you just say "God is the universe" or "God is energy" and they're eternal, then that isn't exactly God is it? It's pantheism at the most.

As Steven Weinberg has said, to paraphrase: "If you believe something like "God is energy" then you can find God in a lump of coal".

The definition of God matters here. If energy or 'existence itself' is eternal and you call that "God" that's very different to if God means 'The Supernatural Intelligent Designer of the universe'!!

God isn't exactly God just by calling it (or 'him') "God", unless that's all you mean - something totally natural that you are just calling "God"!

EvF

(June 7, 2009 at 7:34 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The one I always liked was somethign like:

1. The universe is effectively infinite (I know big bang doesn't reflect that but hey ho)

2. In an infinite universe anything possible must have happened

3. God is possible therefore god exists.

Of course I could argue that it is possible that we don't exist therefore we don't QED ... er ... except it appears we do.

Kyu

The flaw is that you claim "anything is possible." In fact that is not correct by any means. Possibility is limited through the "laws" or properties of the universe.

I have a better proof for God's existance. I live alone. I lock my doors when I am gone. No one enters my house but me and some stray cats I care for. In spit of that, whenever I vacuum the rug, there always seems to be a knot in the cord. I don't put it there. I know the cats are not capable of doing so, nor is there anyone in the house to do so. How does that knot get there? I am convinced there is a "god" that goes around tying knots in cords, but curiously seems to have no other function.

I don't have an instruction manual or Bible on how to "worship" this "god" so it stops being a pest, nor do I know if worship is what it really wants. Imagine a god so vain that it requires constant worship or else it will tie knots in you cords.

Should I tithe? After paying $1,200..00 to the Kirby people, I would think I wouldn't have to tithe. I should have bought my way into knotless heaven.

I know some heathens have denied the existance the cord-knot god by getting a cord retractor. Amazing how technology creates non-believers.

(June 6, 2009 at 4:20 pm)Darwinian Wrote: That has told me nothing! Well, that's not exactly true. It demonstrates nicely how vague and ambiguous verses can be interpreted in a certain way after discoveries or events have occurred.

Until a certain discovery is made the verse has a myriad of different meanings, then, after a discovery is made it is only then people can look at a piece of text and say. Ah! That's what it means.

How can you say that the verses are vague and ambiguous which can be interpreted in certain way? According to Dr Keith Moore (professor in the field of anatomy and cell biology) describes the embryological stage (which was discovered not long ago) to exactly match what is said in the Quran.

see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx434UE3S...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKGurZJO3...re=related

Maybe you require well educated people in the field of the different scientific areas mentioned in Quran to tell you that what is mentioned in the Quran matches with well established facts.

Quote:People claim exactly the same for all of Nostradamus's quatrains.

Surely you can see that?

Secondly Nostradamus had many prophecies which did not come true (like to world ending in the year 2000) so you cannot bring him into context as all the scientific facts in the Quran had be proven to be true.

(June 7, 2009 at 12:36 pm)LEDO Wrote: I have a better proof for God's existance. I live alone. I lock my doors when I am gone. No one enters my house but me and some stray cats I care for. In spit of that, whenever I vacuum the rug, there always seems to be a knot in the cord. I don't put it there. I know the cats are not capable of doing so, nor is there anyone in the house to do so. How does that knot get there? I am convinced there is a "god" that goes around tying knots in cords, but curiously seems to have no other function.

I don't have an instruction manual or Bible on how to "worship" this "god" so it stops being a pest, nor do I know if worship is what it really wants. Imagine a god so vain that it requires constant worship or else it will tie knots in you cords.

Should I tithe? After paying $1,200..00 to the Kirby people, I would think I wouldn't have to tithe. I should have bought my way into knotless heaven.

I know some heathens have denied the existance the cord-knot god by getting a cord retractor. Amazing how technology creates non-believers.

Just worship the vacuum cleaner, it clearly is a physical manifestation of non-contingent actuality.

(June 7, 2009 at 12:36 pm)LEDO Wrote: The flaw is that you claim "anything is possible." In fact that is not correct by any means. Possibility is limited through the "laws" or properties of the universe.

Er yeah ... except it's not my claim! Have I ever sounded like I believe in a god?

Kyu

Any evidence that God doesn't exist?

---

Quote:2. Other gods exitence, why do you not believe in them?

The "other gods" are emanations of the Creator. Basically metaphors. YHWH can be found in all religions. The other gods are myths - parables used to communicate hard to grasp topics to as wide an audience as possible in age with little or no public education. So these other "gods" do exist, as images, as much as a sexually arousing fantasy in one's mind's eye exists; if it did not, why would it elicit a physiological change in the body?

If images didn't exist, there goes art (and porn).

---

So....does anyone want to hear the one about Jesus and natural selection? I told it to another group of atheists and the thread got locked, followed by a ban.....

The burden of proof is on the positive belief without evidence.

There needs to be evidence for God first, before there can be evidence against him.

I am not claiming, for instance, that God is disproved or definitely doesn't exist. I would argue, that I have no evidence for God, and I don't know of anyone who does - so there's no rational reason for me to believe in him untill I have any, and others cannot rationally believe either, untill they have any.

EvF

(July 27, 2009 at 11:27 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The burden of proof is on the positive belief without evidence.

There needs to be evidence for God first, before there can be evidence against him.

I am not claiming, for instance, that God is disproved or definitely doesn't exist. I would argue, that I have no evidence for God, and I don't know of anyone who does - so there's no rational reason for me to believe in him untill I have any, and others cannot rationally believe either, untill they have any.

EvF

The burden of proof is on both hypothesis, so it's "irrational" either way.