My Inquiry

[onmytablet512]

Alright. So it seems most of the arguments I am getting right now are something along the lines of "we have no proof that God exists, therefore he must not exist." I can rebutt that with "we have no proof that God does not exist, therefore he must exist," but that's past the point. I'd like to present to you guys my argument for the existence of God and see what you guys respond with (so far I have not been able to come up with any rebuttal for it.) Please look at this with the open mind that I will look at your rebuttals with

I believe that God exists because of the complexity of the universe. In my opinion, there is absolutely no way this could have all happened by chance. It honestly feels like way too many coincidences to result in the universe we know today.

Take a chromosome. Those seem pretty small and unimportant; I mean, we only have 46 of them. But our 46 chromosomes have about 6x10^9 base pairs in them, totaling up for an information storage of 1.5 gigabytes of data. It also happens that these 6 billion base pairs are perfectly lined up so that we come out as a unique living creature. Just one chromosome pair being off of the 6 billion can give genetic diseases, so if there is no God, why are there so few errors in the chromosome pairing? Shouldn't we have so many errors from the random creation of humans that we are born completely messed up?

You could also take a look at the Earth and, namely, it's position in the Universe. We are perfectly positioned, both by axis of rotation and distance from the Sun, so that we have just enough heat to be comfortable but not contract heat stroke by walking outside and just enough cold to be comfortable but not catch hypothermia or frostbite upon leaving the house. The Earth even has an elliptical orbit that leads to the seasons being created, which seems like an extremely delicate balance to be randomly created.

What about life itself? And not even life, but all the things that come with it- conscience, emotions, etc. We don't have a scientific explanation I know of that can explain the "little voice inside your head." So if there is not a God, what is our explanation for this? How was life first created? And if it was created from biological slime, why haven't we been able to reproduce that?

I've got a few more like this I could put together if anyone wanted. Any and all rebuttals are appreciated!

[Longhorn]

Alright. So it seems most of the arguments I am getting right now are something along the lines of "we have no proof that God exists, therefore he must not exist." I can rebutt that with "we have no proof that God does not exist, therefore he must exist," but that's past the point. I'd like to present to you guys my argument for the existence of God and see what you guys respond with (so far I have not been able to come up with any rebuttal for it.) Please look at this with the open mind that I will look at your rebuttals with

The large majority of atheists do not assert that god does not exist . They acknowledge there is a possibility of him existing, but it is a rather small one and thus they are not convinced of his existence and live their lives under the assumption that he doesn't in fact exist; but most atheist would never claim as a fact that there is no god. This is a very common misconception.

Moreover, take into consideration that the god claim is an untestable one; that means it cannot be proven either way. Other similar claims include Russel's Teapot. Now you have no way of knowing whether there is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, so small that even the most powerful of our telescopes cannot detect it, but it would be perfectly reasonable of you to assume that there is no such teapot, unless you were provided with evidence to the contrary.

I believe that God exists because of the complexity of the universe. In my opinion, there is absolutely no way this could have all happened by chance. It honestly feels like way too many coincidences to result in the universe we know today.

This is known as the argument from incredulity, implying that because you cannot imagine something happening, it could not have happened . This is an informal logical fallacy.

Take a chromosome. Those seem pretty small and unimportant; I mean, we only have 46 of them. But our 46 chromosomes have about 6x10^9 base pairs in them, totaling up for an information storage of 1.5 gigabytes of data. It also happens that these 6 billion base pairs are perfectly lined up so that we come out as a unique living creature. Just one chromosome pair being off of the 6 billion can give genetic diseases, so if there is no God, why are there so few errors in the chromosome pairing? Shouldn't we have so many errors from the random creation of humans that we are born completely messed up?

You could also take a look at the Earth and, namely, it's position in the Universe. We are perfectly positioned, both by axis of rotation and distance from the Sun, so that we have just enough heat to be comfortable but not contract heat stroke by walking outside and just enough cold to be comfortable but not catch hypothermia or frostbite upon leaving the house. The Earth even has an elliptical orbit that leads to the seasons being created, which seems like an extremely delicate balance to be randomly created.

I'm afraid you've got it all backwards friend. It isn't that the universe and Earth are perfectly conditioned for our existence, rather that we exist as a result of the conditions in the universe and on earth. consider however the north and south pole, for example, or the Sahara desert, or that 2/3 of our planet is covered in oceans yet only roughly 2-4% (might misremember) is appropriate for our consumption. The conditions on earth, however sufficient for our existence, are far from perfect.

What about life itself? And not even life, but all the things that come with it- conscience, emotions, etc. We don't have a scientific explanation I know of that can explain the "little voice inside your head." So if there is not a God, what is our explanation for this? How was life first created? And if it was created from biological slime, why haven't we been able to reproduce that?

I suggest you research abiogenesis.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by little voice inside your head?

Addressing your final question, the conditions that allowed life to form are no longer present, and we do not know exactly what they were and thus we have not yet recreated the event.

[FatAndFaithless]

I wouldn't even accept the assertion "it is possible for a God to exist" because I don't know of a way to justify that assertion, especially when one gets into the whole 'outside of space and time' stuff.

Very simply, I do not see enough (or any, really) evidence to accept the proposition that there exists a god. Do I believe in God? No. <--- atheism

[Minimalist]

I'm currently looking for any evidence I can find that God does/does not exist (I'm a Christian),

We do not have to demonstrate that your god - or any god for that matter - does NOT exist.  As the proponent it is up to you to produce evidence that it does.  I cannot prove that there are not invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in my garage at the moment.  But, like your god, the idea is astronomically unlikely.


(P.S. - your bible is not "evidence.")

[onmytablet512]

I'm currently looking for any evidence I can find that God does/does not exist (I'm a Christian),

We do not have to demonstrate that your god - or any god for that matter - does NOT exist.  As the proponent it is up to you to produce evidence that it does.  I cannot prove that there are not invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in my garage at the moment.  But, like your god, the idea is astronomically unlikely.


(P.S. - your bible is not "evidence.")

Read my above proof and let me know what you think of it

(my Bible was not used as evidence)

[Pyrrho]

Hello all! I was scrolling through the Internet tonight and I got on the topic of the existence of God, and ended up stumbling across this site. I'm currently looking for any evidence I can find that God does/does not exist (I'm a Christian), so it would be awesome if you guys would post your best rebuttals against the existence of God here for me to look at. I realize that sometimes I only see one side of an argument so I would like to put this out to you guys so I can see this argument over the existence of God from both sides. Thanks!

There are the standard arguments that you can read, such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

You will want to click on various links for more in-depth analysis of the various arguments.  Philosophers generally regard all of the arguments for the existence of god as being fallacious.


You might also want to take a look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_a...it_atheism

There are different kinds of atheists; those who do not believe in a god ("weak atheism") and those who believe that there is no god ("strong atheism"); see link immediately preceding this sentence.


You might also be interested in:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

And:

...

It would be nice if any evidence/argument for believing in gods could be preceded by an adequate god definition.

It would be nice if people were reasonable, but that, too, is just a fantasy.  You are not likely to get more than gibberish for a "god" definition, and if you do, you will find them retreating from it, erasing it into nothingness.  This idea has been discussed by Antony Flew:

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods." Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

...

http://www.svsu.edu/~koperski/flew.htm

[Minimalist]

We do not have to demonstrate that your god - or any god for that matter - does NOT exist.  As the proponent it is up to you to produce evidence that it does.  I cannot prove that there are not invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in my garage at the moment.  But, like your god, the idea is astronomically unlikely.


(P.S. - your bible is not "evidence.")

Read my above proof and let me know what you think of it

(my Bible was not used as evidence)

Standard xtian fare...long since debunked.  Use the search feature for the "teleological argument."  It's been used repeatedly by people who are easily impressed.

[Pyrrho]

Alright. So it seems most of the arguments I am getting right now are something along the lines of "we have no proof that God exists, therefore he must not exist." I can rebutt that with "we have no proof that God does not exist, therefore he must exist," but that's past the point.

First of all, if anyone is arguing that way, then you are right that it would be fallacious.  The fallacy even has a name: argumentum ad ignorantiam, or appeal to ignorance.

But be careful not to confuse that with an argument about the burden of proof.  If someone makes a claim, then the burden of proof is on them.  For example, if someone says that there is a god, then they have the burden of proof, which means it is up to them to offer sufficient evidence in favor of their claim.  Likewise, if someone says that there is no god, then they have the burden of proof, which means it is up to them to offer sufficient evidence in favor of their claim.

It is also worth mentioning (again, since I also mentioned this in a previous post), that there is a difference between not believing something, and believing that something is false.  If you have no belief one way or the other on the issue of whether there is a god or not, then you lack a belief in a god, and are a (weak) atheist.  If you believe that there is no god (which means one has a belief, rather than simply lacking a belief), then one is a strong atheist.

I'd like to present to you guys my argument for the existence of God and see what you guys respond with (so far I have not been able to come up with any rebuttal for it.) Please look at this with the open mind that I will look at your rebuttals with

I believe that God exists because of the complexity of the universe. In my opinion, there is absolutely no way this could have all happened by chance. It honestly feels like way too many coincidences to result in the universe we know today.

You might want to read about the teleological argument for the existence of god.  Make sure you read the criticisms as well, for it is generally regarded as fallacious.

...

What about life itself? And not even life, but all the things that come with it- conscience, emotions, etc. We don't have a scientific explanation I know of that can explain the "little voice inside your head." So if there is not a God, what is our explanation for this? How was life first created? And if it was created from biological slime, why haven't we been able to reproduce that?

I've got a few more like this I could put together if anyone wanted. Any and all rebuttals are appreciated!

Aside from the fact that there are scientific explanations for some of the things you mention (read up on evolution, for example), you are committing the very same fallacy you mentioned at the beginning of your post.  You are committing the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance.

The argument that we don't know what caused something, therefore we know god did it, is fallacious, an argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance.  (It is also self-contradictory, for it states that we don't know, so therefore we know!)

[FatAndFaithless]

*Twiddles his fingers idly*

[robvalue]

Nice chaps, seems like my chainsaw isn't needed

For those unfamiliar with logical fallacies, it will take a bit of thought to adjust your thinking. But if you want to have serious debate, then you need to be familiar with them and why they are errors. But we're to help with that

My website here has lots of information about the most common fallacies, and why they are errors.

For anyone talking about God:

1) What the hell is God except something defined to fit a role in a gap of knowledge?

2) Why should I care if there is/was one?