Arguments for God Fail Specific Religions

[The Grand Nudger]

No design, no creator. How exactly does a being outside of this world interact with this world by the way? We could observe that point of interaction. You've failed to erect an un-observable god, and failed to demonstrate the existence of an observable god all at once. Bravo.

[genkaus]

interesting how one who claims to be an agnostic athiest is trying to prove the bible wrong. maybe the agnostic part should be removed but anyways you want to a christian who doesn't change doctrine or avoids answers you got one. i believe the bible is 100% correct and 70% of it has already been proven to be accurate and more as they try to disprove it. though i believe some parts are medephorical that talks about some spiritual aspects the creation story is entirely literal. and you may laugh at this but i believe the earth to be around 6 to 7 thousand years old. i believe the theory of evelution originated from an observation of animal adaptation and exagurating it to extreme lengths as to say all living organisms have a common ancestor and developed differently to create the variety of species we have today with no evidence to support it simply to have an origin of life theory that doesn't involve a diety. evelution was created (not to darwins intention) to replace religion and rule it out simply because it's "stupid" with no further argument needed to consider it as a scientific possibility. that's not what science should be it's about finding the truth not trying to prove something that is thought to be truth. science changes all the time but the bible has remained the same and i challenge anyone to prove to me that the bible is flawed using evidence you find. saying "this person said evelution is right and the thought of creation is evidence is stupid" doesn't count as evidence. if you don't understand what you're saying, don't say it. my argument is that even though most say the idea of a God sound's rediculous, the idea that puzzels pieced them selves together to form the universe is just as rediculous if not more. thinking that you can throw a bunch of crap together a billion times and eventually get what you want is deffinition insanity ("doing the same thing over and over expecting different results"). throwing puzzel pieces at the wall will never put it together and just as you see a building and say "that can't just happen" same applies to organisms. it's more likely to get a building from throwing crap together anyways than it is to get a lifeform. i challenge someone to nock my foundation and prove me wrong. unlike other christians i don't abandon my foundation because of scientific theories that haven't been proven.

---

frodo, when christianity was first developed as a religion hundreds of years later they decided to take books about god and put them into a single book and call it the bible. in these include important jewish texts (since that's the origin of christianity) and books of the new testimate which include the the works of the apostiles. all those texts describe jesus as our savior and divine and a part of God himself as he and God are one. any who claim to be christian but not believe in christ have deviated themselves from the the faith to the point that they are no longer christian just as christians deviated from juddism to the point that they are no longer jews. christ is a fundamental part of christianity and it's what makes it christianity and you cannot take christ out of it. since i am a christian, i would know better than these athiests (and btw i don't consider jehovah witness' or mormans christians either and as much as the catholics changed i hardly consider them christians).

Congratulations. You get a full 100 on the Hovind Scale.

[chi pan]

"No design, no creator. How exactly does a being outside of this world interact with this world by the way? We could observe that point of interaction. You've failed to erect an un-observable god, and failed to demonstrate the existence of an observable god all at once. Bravo."

lets see, how does something outside this universe interact with it. well as physicists observe, quantum mechanics is a subject we barely know anything about and looking into it they are thinking this universe doesn't just have 4 dimentions, but possibly up to 12 that we don't know anything about. that could be your answer, he uses different dimentions of our known universe to communicate and interact in ways we don't understand. and most of the amazing things he did were thousands of years ago so unless he does astronomical miricles every day there's no proof of him? it's not going to convince everyone even if god spoke to everyone face to face on a daily bases it wouldn't be believable to everyone. there's no amount of evidence i can throw that will change everyones mind i'm just trying to find good support for modern cosmology theories

[The Grand Nudger]

Except that those dimensions are posited through observation of the effects they have on our own (if they exist). Qauntum mechanics deals with interactions at a very small scale individually, but again, they are observable. So, this boils down to a god of the gaps argument again? "We don't know much about this, so that's how he does it!" The walls have been closing in on that god for a couple hundred years. Something tells me that people like you will just move on to the next hot thing when the door slams shut on your fairy's face in any given arena. You're still assuming the outcome in your hypothesis so you're not there quite yet. Lets get some evidence for this extra-dimensional god on the table, then run an experiment. Assuming we get that far, lets talk about ways to falsify this hypothesis, let's see if others would be willing to give the experiment a go, and let's get the whole bit published in a peer reviewed journal (just to make sure we haven't loaded the experiment, or jumped the gun based on flawed or incomplete data). Or would you rather argue about imaginary constructs with me on the interwebs?

Modern cosmology theories already have good support, that's why we've accepted them. God has no such support, and is in direct conflict with the evidence we have, which is why the theory has been completely excluded from science.

[chi pan]

you don't get what i'm saying. i'm saying GOD IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE UNIVERSE. before we can even start to understand God and how he interacts with us and the universe, we have to fully understand how the universe works which we aren't even close to understanding. it's doubtful we ever will even if our civilization lasted for thousands or even millions of years after today. this is why creation can't 100% prove itself but the current cosmoligy theories aren't even 5% proven.

[Jackalope]

before we can even start to understand God and how he interacts with us and the universe, we have to fully understand how the universe works

You'd do will to demonstrate that your deity even exists first. Any claims about the nature of said deity are otherwise useless.

current cosmoligy theories aren't even 5% proven.

You got a citation for that claim? Or did you just pull it out of your hat?

[Ace Otana]

that's a good point, but the fact of the matter is, science is what's proving what is in the physical world. since god is outside that, there is no way to scientifically prove that it doesn't exist, all you can do is look at the design of how living things work and they're so complicated we don't fully understand them. the big question is, how can things so complicated just occure in nature with no guidence from a designer when we can't even reproduce them with guidence? it's not just unlikely, it's insane. and if in fact these things couldn't just happen in nature and they had to built by someone the question then is who? well it would have to be something outside this universe sense everything in the universe has a beginning and an end which refers us to the theory of an inteligent designer outside our universe. that's how it can be proven right and try to refute this point without personal insults and i will agnolage all valid points.

Nothing suggests that god created anything. You haven't demonstrated that a god exists yet. A does not prove B without first proving A.
Also just because you may not understand how things come together and work doesn't mean that some god did it. Just because we don't know what caused X doesn't make Y the default answer.
Instead of asserting the unsupported and improbable, work with what you know now (which isn't much apparently).
You can't just assert that god is the reason for anything, it's like me asserting that Thor or Zeus or fairies created everything. Until you can demonstrate that a god exists, your assertion that it's all designed and created by it/him is utterly worthless. No use to us, provides no understanding. No value or explanatory power. Just because you can't comprehend how nature works don't mean it's not true. The universe won't rearrange itself just so we can comprehend it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your god doesn't seem complicated at all. It's an excuse for ignorance.

[chi pan]

"Nothing suggests that god created anything. You haven't demonstrated that a god exists yet. A does not prove B without first proving A."

good point, but lets talk about how this applies to evelution. in order for evelution to work they must prove the earth is millions of years old. how do they do this? using various dating methods. though there have been many cases that have proven them to be inaccurate. here's one example: samples were taken from a lava dome on mt st helens and radio dated them using potassium-argon in 1986. they got ages of 340,000 to 2.8 million years old on rocks only 10 years old. what's their explination? this is it "considerins that the half-life of potassium-40 is fairly long (1,250 million years) the potassium-argon method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old. a few thousand years are not enough time for argon 40 to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be dectected and quantified." what does that mean? well lets play the what if game. what if the earth was around 6,000 years old? well then this method wouldn't be accurate on any rock that exists according to their own description. well what about carbon dating? well that is used on organic substances, not rocks, and is not accurate after 50,000 years because unlike potassium 40, carbon 14 has a much lower half-life and after 50,000 years, all the carbon 14 in a substance would be gone, decayed into nitrogen. therefore, cannot possibly give the dates necessary for evolution. it's bad science.

"Your god doesn't seem complicated at all. It's an excuse for ignorance."

oh he doesn't? ok maybe you can explain how God can be 3 people but one person at the same time, how a part of him can know something the other does not cuz not even i understand that and it's my religion not your's. you don't even care therefore you never thought about it so of course he seams simple it's a possibility we can overlook cuz it's stupid.

apparently those of you don't know what science is. this is how it works, you come up with a hypothesis, then you do an experiment to prove it wrong, or possibly right. if the experiment doesn't work, it's wrong. if it does work it could be right, but you could later disprove it with another experiment so we can only go so far when proving something right. evelution, however, cannot be experimented because we don't have millions of years to observe these things and we don't exactly understand how life started in the first place. it's an incomplete theory and no one can deny that. but this theory can't even get close to be proven b/c it can't even make it past the guessing stage. therefore evolution isn't science at all, it's just a guess that some scientists think is most likely how the universe, our plannet, life began. and i'm not against science, i love science and going against evolution doesn't hold science back b/c guessing how the universe began doesn't improve science at all nor does it benifit humanity except for athiests to call every theist stupid cuz they don't believe the guesses of scientists. if you want to benifit humanity, focus on the future, not on the past. this guess work is a waste of time cuz there's no way to even prove it.

[LastPoet]

good point, but lets talk about how this applies to evelution. in order for evelution to work they must prove the earth is millions of years old. how do they do this? using various dating methods. though there have been many cases that have proven them to be inaccurate. here's one example: samples were taken from a lava dome on mt st helens and radio dated them using potassium-argon in 1986. they got ages of 340,000 to 2.8 million years old on rocks only 10 years old. what's their explination? this is it "considerins that the half-life of potassium-40 is fairly long (1,250 million years) the potassium-argon method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old. a few thousand years are not enough time for argon 40 to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be dectected and quantified." what does that mean? well lets play the what if game. what if the earth was around 6,000 years old? well then this method wouldn't be accurate on any rock that exists according to their own description. well what about carbon dating? well that is used on organic substances, not rocks, and is not accurate after 50,000 years because unlike potassium 40, carbon 14 has a much lower half-life and after 50,000 years, all the carbon 14 in a substance would be gone, decayed into nitrogen. therefore, cannot possibly give the dates necessary for evolution. it's bad science.

So, you acknowledge people's critics that shot down your argument and just put it behind your back, moving your argument elsewhere? Is this what you call a debate? Its a fucking monologue. Anyway, since you didn't provide a source for your claim about mt st Helens, I decided to search for it and surprise surprise, here is the first 3 links:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...adiodating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ting-prove
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm

Yeah, no bias on those sites. But here, here is an article with actual scientific sources(I could search for more, but I suspect you will just deflect it and move the goalpost):
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_...ite_kh.htm

I guess lying is ok as long as you do it for jeebus

apparently those of you don't know what science is. this is how it works, you come up with a hypothesis, then you do an experiment to prove it wrong, or possibly right. if the experiment doesn't work, it's wrong. if it does work it could be right, but you could later disprove it with another experiment so we can only go so far when proving something right. evelution, however, cannot be experimented because we don't have millions of years to observe these things and we don't exactly understand how life started in the first place. it's an incomplete theory and no one can deny that. but this theory can't even get close to be proven b/c it can't even make it past the guessing stage. therefore evolution isn't science at all, it's just a guess that some scientists think is most likely how the universe, our plannet, life began. and i'm not against science, i love science and going against evolution doesn't hold science back b/c guessing how the universe began doesn't improve science at all nor does it benifit humanity except for athiests to call every theist stupid cuz they don't believe the guesses of scientists. if you want to benifit humanity, focus on the future, not on the past. this guess work is a waste of time cuz there's no way to even prove it.

Are you serious? That is not the scientific method, the scientific method is as follows:
1- You have a problem.
2- You search for literature about that problem.
3- You create a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.
4- You test that hypothesis, if fails, return to step 2.
5- If the test proves the hypothesis submit it in a paper in a scientific venue to be analysed by your peers, so that they can repeat the processes you used to prove your hypothesis.
6- If all goes ok, hope for a nobel prize nomination

Besides, in order to get to understand the future, you should analize the past, also this is not an atheist scientists conspiracy, I know of many theist scientists that accept evolution, and that doesn't impede their belief in god. Its just a YEC stupidity manifest. Infact I live in a country 90% catholic and they accept evolution.

One more thing, do you realise that even if evolution isn't true, you did nothing to prove your fabled delusion of a sky-daddy? Wanting very much for it to exist won't do, and the bible is only proof of bronze-age ignorance.