Here is why you should believe in God.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Moron keeps trying to get us to accept things without evidence and appealing to feels and fallacies

[GrandizerII]

Ultimately, it comes down to what OP means by "God". If "God" is that which is defined as the ground of existence, then it's no question that its existence is at the least plausible. The problem for the OP (based on his posts) is that they're not really arguing for that, even if they see it as an initial starting point for what they actually believe.

God = ground of existence is not the same thing as standard Muslim take of God (or even standard Christian for that matter). As soon as you argue for a more limited (or less simple) God (whether it's the Trinity or some superhuman kind of God), you lose the "right" to say you're arguing for God in the former sense.

[The Architect Of Fate]

In the end Klor is just repeating long refuted apologist nonesense 

There is no reason to believe nature is designed 

The idea something cannot come from nothing is unjustified (depending on the definition of nothing )

God needs a explanation or it's special pleading  and no saying he didn't begin to exist is a cop out 

Theology isn't a real discipline any more then  astrology is 

Intuition cannot solve ontological questions 

Merely having a sense of wonder doesn't equal god 

The idea that we don't use science to solve all things does no take away from he fact it's the best method nor take away from the fact all other methods are far less reliable and that we should try and shift beliefs upward to a science .    

People who insist science cannot have an answer frequently eat crow .

Asking why god would do something is valid and not giving an answer when asked is bullshit

Etc etc etc

[R00tKiT]

What you have is empty headed wonder that...as a living human being asking questions, the requirements of your existence are met.  Gee, real fuckin headscrtacher there.

..duuuuuh

You do realise you're just repeating an empty tautology, right? Even in the existence of a deity in your worldview, you would still repeat the same stupid objection you just wrote.

Imagine dolls suddenly becoming conscious and thinking that they solved all the age-old philosophical problems of their existence by saying" there is no need to think of the possibility of a manufacturer... we're clearly brought here because requirement of our existence are met".... stupid right..?

The first reaction of a fucking doll becoming conscious is to think it has to have a creator, a manufacturer. And just because the subsequent dolls changed shape and evolved after billions of years shouldn't make them forget their gracious first manufacturer... it's really that simple.

Could the universe have been "worse" or "better" - sure.  It's unclear that we would be here to ask the question if it had been, though. 

A worse universe with conscious beings like us/worse than us is entirely possible, it's not hard to imagine much simpler scenarios of some naive notion of consciousness in some unidimensional existence, which makes the question even more pressing : how come we have a better universe than infinitely many worse outcomes ? It doesn't take more than to understand sanely the question, to conclude that it took a personal cause to come up with a good enough universe for its ultimate purpose.

Back to the ex nihilo question, "something can't come from nothing" tautology is not broken in the case of a deity. A deity was always there, to say it came from nothing already presupposes the deity was preceded by this nothing, but a deity is eternal by definition.

This is not a reason to believe in a god, lol.

Belief in a god can of course be justified in a cumulative argument. Something caused all this. A first cause's properties can be inferred from its effects since, again, something can't give what it doesn't have - and this holds true in your 747 example when investigated closely -. We already have a personal, eternal agent outside of our universe.

All the objections I know against what's above are nothing more than dishonest wordplay. All the premises to get to a personal, eternal cause are the simplest elements of reasoning possible. And they're all it takes to justify belief in god. 

It only remains to justify how a first personal cause would possess the justness property. One this is done, justness directly implies this eternal agent provided us with guidance.

---

If God gave us the laws of the universe then why did he formulate those laws the only way they could work? What choice did he have, the universe can't work any other way.

How do you know that? How can you possibly prove that any possible universe must have the same exact laws we have ..?

Pi, 3.14159. How can that number be anything other than what it is

defining pi still takes imagining a two dimensional circle. A unidimensional universe is not impossible, a priori.

If those constants were anything other than what they are the universe would not exist.

So what? Robots can say the same thing about their fine tuning. Is that excuse enough for them to deny any human manufacturer?

---

Wow, so because there are so called laws of nature there must be a god because he gave us laws like to kill all of our firstborn male children (yes, human sacrifice) Exodus 22:29 and 34:19.

I think this is off topic. I am not arguing for any particular religion here. Laws clearly imply a lawgiver for all the reasons I mentioned. It's better to proceed one step a time;

And also God failed to mention any of those laws of nature. I mean imagine how easier human life would have been if he mentioned laws of nature

Improvement of our quality of life is a very clumsy objection. It's not even clear we're more fortunate than our ancestors. Some would argue we just live differently, not better, whatever better is supposed to mean...

Also there is no reason why the laws of physics cannot have come from within the universe itself. And they all lead humans to follow to the symmetries of the void out of which the universe spontaneously arose without any miracle or divine intervention.

 

.... spontaneously arose

---

Ultimately, it comes down to what OP means by "God". If "God" is that which is defined as the ground of existence, then it's no question that its existence is at the least plausible. The problem for the OP (based on his posts) is that they're not really arguing for that, even if they see it as an initial starting point for what they actually believe.

God = ground of existence is not the same thing as standard Muslim take of God (or even standard Christian for that matter). As soon as you argue for a more limited (or less simple) God (whether it's the Trinity or some superhuman kind of God), you lose the "right" to say you're arguing for God in the former sense.

It would be progress if we agree on what you call a starting point. And I don't think the God as defined in Islam is that different from a ground of existence, they're just a few attributes apart.

[R00tKiT]

A sidenote on the Qur'anic revelation;

There is only one question a skeptic should be concerned about when investigating the truth of Islam, that is, of Muhammad's extraordinary claims; which is : what happened to Muhammad[PBUH] in the Hira cave ? The latter being where Muslims believe he literally met a supernatual creature [for the first time].

The story of the first revelation goes as follows : during one such occasion while he was in contemplation, an angel appeared before him and said, "Read", upon which he replied, "I am unable to read". Thereupon the angel caught hold of him and embraced him heavily. This happened two more times after which the angel commanded Muhammad t
Perplexed by this new experience, Muhammad made his way to home where he was consoled by his wife, who also took him to her Ebionite cousin Waraqah', who was a Christian. Islamic tradition holds that Waraqah, upon hearing the description, testified to Muhammad's prophethood.

There are only four options ;

1) Muhammad faked the event, including the replies from the supposed angel, AND his reaction when he came back to his wife. Subsequently, he mastered the craft of pretending to receive revelation, delude crowds of people, make them conduct wars in the name of a huge scam, including relatives of his, who knew him before he started claiming prophecy. That is, he lied knowingly to everyone he's met or known before for a full twenty three years.

2) A medical condition, such as temporal lobe epilepsy, made Muhammad imagine supernatural beings AND be able to utter spontaneously the literary achievement called the Qur'an. He was absolutely convinced and honest in his preachings.

3) The entire story of revelation is made up. Muhammad might have never existed. Everything about him, including his teachings, legacy, conquests, was a colossal historical invention.

4) He really received revelation from a deity

I am curious to know which option members here will pick.

[Succubus#2]

Succubus#2If God gave us the laws of the universe then why did he formulate those laws the only way they could work? What choice did he have, the universe can't work any other way.

How do you know that? How can you possibly prove that any possible universe must have the same exact laws we have ..?



We don't live in another possible universe we live in this one.
It's easy to see why creationists are so enamoured with this multiverse bollocks, it's a convenient last resort.
When their unfalsifiable proposition 'God' is kicked into touch they invoke another one.

Pi, 3.14159. How can that number be anything other than what it is

defining pi still takes imagining a two dimensional circle. A unidimensional universe is not impossible, a priori.


No imagination required a circle has two dimensions, it can't be any other way. A unidimensional universe?
A universe with the thickness of the Planck Length? 1.6 x10-35 m.
Get tae fuck.

If those constants were anything other than what they are the universe would not exist.

So what? Robots can say the same thing about their fine tuning. Is that excuse enough for them to deny any human manufacturer?

Ask me again when robots become sentient.

eta, damn and fuck this site's quote function.

[R00tKiT]

We don't live in another possible universe we live in this one.
It's easy to see why creationists are so enamoured with this multiverse bollocks, it's a convenient last resort.
When their unfalsifiable proposition 'God' is kicked into touch they invoke another one.

Are you going to answer my question, instead of talking about creationists and the multiverse.. ?
Prove that this law is the only one a universe can possibly have.

No imagination required a circle has two dimensions, it can't be any other way. A unidimensional universe?
A universe with the thickness of the Planck Length? 1.6 x10-35 m.
Get tae fuck.

How can you invoke Planck's length, which belongs to our universe, when talking about any possible universe in general?

Ask me again when robots become sentient.

Why? Are you afraid of their response when it happens?

[no one]

Meth rots your brain, and you obviously don't have much to spare.

[Succubus#2]

Are you going to answer my question,

Define 'question' and tell me why they are important. Sometimes we never get an answer even when we're knocking at the door.

instead of talking about creationists?

What do you mean by talking? There was life on earth long before language was invented.

and the multiverse.. ?

Which particular multiverse? Alan Guff or Max Telemark, be specific. Show your work.

Prove that this law is the only one a universe can possibly have.

How can you be so sure this universe is the only spawn of the multiverse? An adult male can release 1.2 billion sperm in a single sitting. The second coming, not so much.

How can you invoke Planck's length, which belongs to our universe, when talking about any possible universe in general?

I think Planck's length was the reason his wife left him and took up with a bullfighter.

Why? Are you afraid of their response when it happens?

Afraid? I'm afraid of fuckall on two legs and very little on four.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Succubus#2If God gave us the laws of the universe then why did he formulate those laws the only way they could work? What choice did he have, the universe can't work any other way.

How do you know that? How can you possibly prove that any possible universe must have the same exact laws we have ..?



We don't live in another possible universe we live in this one.
It's easy to see why creationists are so enamoured with this multiverse bollocks, it's a convenient last resort.
When their unfalsifiable proposition 'God' is kicked into touch they invoke another one.

Pi, 3.14159. How can that number be anything other than what it is

defining pi still takes imagining a two dimensional circle. A unidimensional universe is not impossible, a priori.


No imagination required a circle has two dimensions, it can't be any other way. A unidimensional universe?
A universe with the thickness of the Planck Length? 1.6 x10-35 m.
Get tae fuck.

If those constants were anything other than what they are the universe would not exist.

So what? Robots can say the same thing about their fine tuning. Is that excuse enough for them to deny any human manufacturer?

Ask me again when robots become sentient.

eta, damn and fuck this site's quote function.

Lol too bad we can demonstrate existence of human manufacturer