Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.

[GrandizerII]

The whole thing remains an effect by induction that we can apply parts to the whole, just as we do with any series of lines.

Again, it's like saying 100 pounds is heavy, 1000 pounds is heavy, infinite pounds is not heavy, makes no sense.

Yes, arguing from part to whole is not always a fallacy, correct. But sometimes it is.

In the case of the infinity of a line vs. the "finity" of its individual points, it is a fallacy to say the line must be finite because its points are "finite".

[purplepurpose]

--nvm

[Mystic]

The line is not finite, but the whole line didn't always exist, and if none it always existed, and whole of it didn't always exist, but they all came to be, it's rational to say whether it's infinite or not, it has to come to be.

One thing had to always exist, but none of it always existed, and the whole thing didn't always exist.

In case of composition fallacy, it always is, is when the individual parts make some feature together and their togetherness as a whole makes it the case that the individual thing doesn't apply to the above.


But a line is a line, infinite or not, it's made out of lines. And the whole thing you can stretch it out, true, but if the line is made out of all effects, what does it mean to say the whole thing is not an effect? It's a meaningless expression.


It's rather trying to say, something in the past always existed which made way for something in the future. But if none of always existed, and the whole thing has not, and no part of it always existed, what does it mean to say some part of it always existed?


Yes we can imagine an infinite line by definition steams back forever back, but if none of it always existed, then none of it always existed. That simple bro.

[Aliza]

"Evidence for god. Do you have any?" recent topic had long and complex arguments, which I had hard time following.

I would like to see the same topic continued, but arguments must be as simple and short as possible, so everyone could follow them.

My short point is that God, even if He exists there can have an endless variations of Him, because we cannot know for sure. Yes, Bible can be true, but it's only a small chance that God uses his endless Might and Wisdom to do what even humans don't do for the most part - torture as long as you want to show how Badass you are.

I don't think theists need evidence to believe in G-d. For whatever it's worth, I don't claim to have any evidence; I simply think it makes more sense that there is a G-d. I don't feel the need to convince other people to adopt my position because that serves no purpose. I can state my position, and I can try to explain for the sake of being understood, but I don't need evidence for myself and I feel no compulsion to find evidence to satisfy other people's minimum requirements for belief.

[downbeatplumb]

Not an atheist claim. False.

Why do atheists always ask where god comes from?

I don't. 
I know where gods came from.
Someone's imagination.

[GrandizerII]

The line is not finite, but the whole line didn't always exist, and if none it always existed, and whole of it didn't always exist, but they all came to be, it's rational to say whether it's infinite or not, it has to come to be.

Ok, I see what the issue is. You're arguing the A-theory of time, which I reject. I'm a B-theorist when it comes to time. In other words, using the line analogy, all parts of the line have always existed even as one part precedes another ad infinitum.

One thing had to always exist, but none of it always existed, and the whole thing didn't always exist.

But if that one thing always existed, then that means your continuing line in its original stage has always been. In other words, you seem to be arguing the first stage of the universe has never had a beginning?

In case of composition fallacy, it always is, is when the individual parts make some feature together and their togetherness as a whole makes it the case that the individual thing doesn't apply to the above.

No shit, MK. That's the definition (albeit worded badly).

[Aliza]

Not an atheist claim. False.

Why do atheists always ask where god comes from?

I also wonder why atheists bother asking that question. In asking that, they're issuing me a challenge and they know I don't have an answer for it. But somehow, they think I've never thought of that question, have never pondered it, and that somehow in asking me this I'm supposed to have this instant moment of sudden realization that everything I've ever believed is false.

I don't know where G-d comes from and I don't really give a shit because my belief isn't based on my ability to explain the origins of G-d. My belief is based on my evaluation of the material that's been presented to me, and not a single person has given me a good reason for me to change my position. People have given me good reasons to lesson my religious observance, and I've acted on those reasons.

[EgoDeath]

"Evidence for god. Do you have any?" recent topic had long and complex arguments, which I had hard time following.

I would like to see the same topic continued, but arguments must be as simple and short as possible, so everyone could follow them.

My short point is that God, even if He exists there can have an endless variations of Him, because we cannot know for sure. Yes, Bible can be true, but it's only a small chance that God uses his endless Might and Wisdom to do what even humans don't do for the most part - torture as long as you want to show how Badass you are.

I don't think theists need evidence to believe in G-d. For whatever it's worth, I don't claim to have any evidence; I simply think it makes more sense that there is a G-d. I don't feel the need to convince other people to adopt my position because that serves no purpose. I can state my position, and I can try to explain for the sake of being understood, but I don't need evidence for myself and I feel no compulsion to find evidence to satisfy other people's minimum requirements for belief.

That is so intellectually ridiculous. Why does a god require no evidence but almost everything else in our life does? If I go to cross the street I have to act on evidence. If I am using my stove I have to act on evidence. If I'm choosing a good university I have to act on evidence. Why is it that when choosing a deity to believe in, it requires no evidence to act? 

Almost every single other thing in our lives require evidence.

But because you were raised in your faith, you accept it as self-evident. It doesn't need evidence, it's just true to you, for no good reason at all.

[GrandizerII]

Why do atheists always ask where god comes from?

I also wonder why atheists bother asking that question. In asking that, they're issuing me a challenge and they know I don't have an answer for it. But somehow, they think I've never thought of that question, have never pondered it, and that somehow in asking me this I'm supposed to have this instant moment of sudden realization that everything I've ever believed is false.

I don't know where G-d comes from and I don't really give a shit because my belief isn't based on my ability to explain the origins of G-d.  My belief is based on my evaluation of the material that's been presented to me, and not a single person has given me a good reason for me to change my position. People have given me good reasons to lesson my religious observance, and I've acted on those reasons.

Well, the question is usually meant as a counter to the question that is asked by some theists challenging atheists, namely "where did the universe come from?" We don't usually do it just to taunt theists like you.

Nevermind. Apparently, some of us do.

[unfogged]

I also wonder why atheists bother asking that question. In asking that, they're issuing me a challenge and they know I don't have an answer for it. But somehow, they think I've never thought of that question, have never pondered it, and that somehow in asking me this I'm supposed to have this instant moment of sudden realization that everything I've ever believed is false.

I don't know where G-d comes from and I don't really give a shit because my belief isn't based on my ability to explain the origins of G-d.  My belief is based on my evaluation of the material that's been presented to me, and not a single person has given me a good reason for me to change my position. People have given me good reasons to lesson my religious observance, and I've acted on those reasons.

Well, the question is usually meant as a counter to the question that is asked by some theists challenging atheists, namely "where did the universe come from?" We don't usually do it just to taunt theists like you.

More specifically, it is a response to the claim that the universe can't have always existed for whatever their pet reason is. Theists propose to get around that by proposing that the universe was created by some other thing that always existed and don't see that as special pleading. Asking where the god came from is an attempt to point out that if the universe needs a cause then the god needs a cause and if the god doesn't need a cause then the universe (which doesn't include the complexity of being incredibly intelligent) doesn't need a cause.