Why there must be a God

[DeistPaladin]

It's "their." And that's all here that deserves a response.

Something tells me that he's a "drive by" anyway.

[ThinkingMan]

I work in software development and everybody in my team are athiests. They also seem to be quite open to discussion and try to discuss intelligently addressing the points that are being debated. This contrasts with almost every reply here where not one of you have refuted any of the single points I have made rather you have just resorted to cheap insults and comments without any intellectual basis at all. Pretty much sums you all up.

I dont think I have read a single reasonably intelligent post yet. You even agree with me on some points yet you then contradict yourself:

"Science isn't a religion, its not a belief system, it is none of the things you describe, its observation, hypothesis, testing, analyzing, concluding. So far science has proven itself at being adept at modeling how and why the universe works. That's ALL. Scientific methods can be applied to claims of God's impact, not to God itself, and no scientist attempts to put God to the test, there's nothing to test, as you say. But the claims by adherents can be examined and are largely proven wrong, hardly credible evidence to put faith in a creator."

I did not say science is a religion or a belief system so stop putting words into my mouth. Moreover I clearly agreed with you about it being 'adept at modeling how and why the universe works. That's ALL' when I said it rocks at dealing with tangible phenomenon'. Therefore you have made no point at all but rather showed you agree with me. This is not about how the universe works this is about the cause behind the universe.

You obviously agree that were there to be an unlimited independent creator science would not be able to test it since it only deals with tangible matter sunjected to cause and effect. I have clearly stated the logic behind why a creator with the attributes I have mentioned must be the cause but you have not shown how this logic is false.

"It's only uncomplicated if you insert God for the real answers to the hard questions"

You are right it is uncomplicated if you insert the creator because that is the only possible solution. There is no other possible explanantion in the same way that x+3=5 cannot be anything other then 2. Anybody who says x is other then 2 is stupid, complicating matters for himself, retarded, in complete denial etc. Perhaps it is that you are in denial do not want to accept the existence of God because of the implications it will have on your lifes or perhaps your minds are in agreement with God but your hearts are not. You can deny x being 2 in the above equation all you like but that will not change the truth.


How pathetic nobody has even refuted one of the points I have made and shown how the logic I have used is weak or void. Throughout the entire quran it tells people not to follow tradition, ignorance, arrogance etc but rather to contemplate everything around them and deduce the existence of a creator. Indeed the quran states those people who do so are those ".....who have sense".

[ABierman1986]

Ugh Thinking man, you're an idiot. Nevermind this discussion.
Look into CS and talk to me about math, plus, WE developed math, X is two because thats what we said it was, not the universe. Same as God, we said God is there, not the universe, we could spend our time teaching you basic logic, but its not worth our time.

[Minimalist]

I work in software development

What do you do there? Sweep up. You are far too illogical to design software.

[ThinkingMan]

Clearly you people are not able to refute my logic. Most educated athiests who consider themselves to be smart would love to indulge in this sort of discussin which i know from real life discussions. I am wondering weather I am on a forum fulll of uneducated athiests and the like rather then former types.

The reality is not a single statement I have made in my original post can be refuted and this is why you have not done so.

[Welsh cake]

I'm absolutely baffled as to how atheists do not accept the existence of a creator

Easy, we simply either do not believe in the concept or lack the belief in the concept altogether.

ThinkingMan you need to actually spend more time thinking rather than trolling, because at this point, you really don't want to know what my first-impressions of you are right now.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I'm absolutely baffled as to how atheists do not accept the existence of a creator and can only imagine there views are based on stupidity, illogical and incorrect application of science rather then intellect, logic, science etc.

That's fine. I'm absolutely baffled how otherwise rational people can accept that a person you cannot ever see touch smell or feel created the universe despite no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Aren't we all amazed here?

Science rocks however it deals only with tangible phenomenon. Since God is something of the unseen we cannot apply science to God. Therefore in this respect trying to 'prove' God with science is complete stupidity. Of course when we apply science to tangible phenomenon sicence can prove/disprove a lot of things. Moreover when people like apparent scientific agnostics say we are waiting for a god to be proven, the stupidity of their statement is completely ignorant of science itself considering God is not tangible to us.

God is just as unprovable by science as any other product of my or human imagination, but why is god given special treatment over things like spiderman, unicorns, and godzilla?

Nothing in existence creates itself or exists by its own accord. The very nature of anything in the known universe is that every thing is limited and dependent on something esle to maintain its existence. The question arises so where did everything come from. The only logical answer is that there must have been an initator/creator that started everything. The properties of this initiator/creator is that it is not limited or dependent on anything else to exist. Therefore God created everything and God has nothing before him.

No one in science who understands the field has ever postulated that the universe arose from nothing. Were this the case, it would violate anyway some important fundemental principles in physics (like the first law of thermodynamics.) That's something that people like you who want to interject a creator into the mix despite the fact that there are many truely unknown variables in terms of how life and the universe began.
The fact that you and other theists want there to be a god there doesn't excuse the fact that there is no real reason, at this time, for a god to be necessary for anything.

It really is so simple. If I say x+3=5. You will say x MUST be 2 otherwise the rest of the equation cannot hold true. The proof that x is 2 is the rest of the equation. Likewise the proof that God exist is us, we are the proof. If he didnt exist theres no way that we would exist. The unlimited undependant creator is the neccessity for our universe to exist.

Things are never that simple. The oversimplification such as what you postulated above is necessary for theists such as yourself to cover for the lack of understanding of the scientific principles and decades of hard labor and scientific discovery. There are no easy answers, but some people attempt to make things up to have them anyway, but the imaginings of primative men could never really bring humanity any closer to the actual underlying truths of the universe. We'd only be deluding ourselves.

It really is not complicated, hidden or strange at all. You merely need to think sensibly and everything becomes clear. If you want to dispute anything in this article please address the specific points I have made with science, logic and reasoning. If you cannot, then that clearly shows your views on life are devoid of any intellect, logic etc

And you're already attempting to limit the arguement so you can restrict the answers given to you to be only the ones you want to hear. Theists present arguements like this because they are not interested in truth or honesty, but only in the specific answers the theist debater wants to hear.

[Minimalist]

Clearly you people are not able to refute my logic.

Odd that what you think is "logic" comes across as the same horseshit we get from believers all the time. This is a board full of atheists. What part of that don't you get.? Here's another tip for you. Most of us were born and raised with the same kind of religious indoctrination that you have failed to shake off. We have rejected the sky-daddy nonsense for what it is. A mechanism for control of primitive people. Did you really expect to show up here spouting the same old tired shit that we have heard ten thousand times before and have us say " oh, well this guy is right!"

Grow up. Your allah is as phony as all the other gods that have been created by the fertile imagination of humans.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Clearly you people are not able to refute my logic. Most educated athiests who consider themselves to be smart would love to indulge in this sort of discussin which i know from real life discussions. I am wondering weather I am on a forum fulll of uneducated athiests and the like rather then former types.

The reality is not a single statement I have made in my original post can be refuted and this is why you have not done so.

Probably the reason why we didn't bother responding to the arguments was that we've heard this tedious drivel so many times that we just can't be bothered any more.

That said, I'll list a few objections to your argument.

1) We don't know that everything has to have a cause. Causes imply temporal priority and, as there was no time before the Big Bang, perhaps it needed no cause.
2) How do you know that the universe hasn't existed in some form forever?
3) Why suppose the cause to be a god, rather than, say, a quantum fluctuation?
4) Why suppose the cause to be a loving god? I don't see many answered prayers around.
5) Why suppose the cause to be a loving god who conversed with Muhammad and sent down the angel Jibril, and did all the other nonsense which your religion espouses?
6) Why is this crappy argument so popular?

[lrh9]

Clearly you people are not able to refute my logic. Most educated athiests who consider themselves to be smart would love to indulge in this sort of discussin which i know from real life discussions. I am wondering weather I am on a forum fulll of uneducated athiests and the like rather then former types.

The reality is not a single statement I have made in my original post can be refuted and this is why you have not done so.

---

I told the witch doctor I was in love with you.
I told the witch doctor I was in love with you.
And then the witch doctor, he told me what to do!
He told me:
Ooh eeh ooh ah ah ting tang walla walla bing bang!
Ooh eeh ooh ah ah ting tang walla walla bing bang!

---