Nerdfighters

I have been an atheist for a while and have always been looking for an argument that will prove the existence of A GOD. A GOD is in all caps to show that I am not looking for you to prove the christian god or the greek gods, all i want is proof of the existence of a higher power that created all things. He does not have to be a moral being, nor does he have to give to craps about his creation. I just want someone to prove that he is there (I use he because in the English language we assume masculine when no gender is put forth). So anyone of any background of any knowledge level go for it. 

Oh and as a side note, yes you do have to prove that god is there, i don't have to prove he is not. It is like asking someone to prove that a dragon exists when the dragon will become undetectable the minute a person looks at is. The same is true for god. He does not exist in our plane of being as I have been told oh so many times and therefore cannot be detected in any way. So don't come in here and say that I have to prove that there is no god. That is for another debate.

Tags: eleven, existence, fish, god, moose, pie

Views: 4176

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Life is the opposite of entropy, matter is re-arranged into a more ordered form. This is happening within the universe, which is a closed system, therefore entropy is being breached within a closed system.

Evidence for the impossibility of coexistance please.

The law of thermodynamics which states that ALL matter will move from a state of order to chaos. Entropy.

Really, now.

 

Well, I was going to go throw a ball with my dad, but unfortunately gravity exists. Since apparently there's no such thing as some forces counteracting other forces, such as the upwards momentum of a ball briefly overwhelming the force of gravity such as to make the ball fly through the air, I guess we have to stay inside.

 

Sarcasm aside, yeah, it's not like the only law of physics is thermodynamics. The universe does what it does. Sometimes an object in motion doesn't stay in motion on account of forces acting upon it, ye ken?

Well, I was going to go throw a ball with my dad, but unfortunately gravity exists. Since apparently there's no such thing as some forces counteracting other forces



Then kindly show the forces that are counteracting the law of thermodynamics. Since it is one of the laws of the universe, it should always be true.

Forces counteracting the laws? No.

 

Forces counteracting the forces produced by the laws? Yes.

If you want a proof, I think  you should read "Discourse on the Method" by Descartes. Well, not all of it because I can assure you it is quite difficult to understand but only the fourth part (I don't know if the language is "actualized" in english, but in french it is the same text that it was in 1630s, so it's really hard to read). This part aim at proving the existence of God. You have to know that Descartes was Catholic but he "proove "  it with reasonable argument, that can maybe be a bit old. 

In short, he says that if we are able to imagine something that is "perfect" , while we are "unperfect" (sorry for my english by the way ^^), it means that there is "something" among us that has this perfection, and so that is universal at our opposite. The author says it is God.

It was a quick summary, but to be sure, you should read it by yourself. I study it in Philosophy but it is still a bit confuse for me, so I'm really sorry if it is gloomy  for you ^^".

I hope it will help you :)

Descartes' arguments don't even attempt to hide their circular nature. The proofs were meant to convince believers, not the layman. Hell, there's even a lot of speculation going around that Descartes himself knew that the arguments weren't valid, and wrote his discourse solely to convince the church that he was a devout believer (Which he was, for the record--but he liked science and stuff, so they questioned his faith, which was not a good thing at the time).

When I read Descartes letters to the Princess,  after I read his 'episteme'  I noticed he seemed like too much of a smart arse to really conclude what he did without seeing the contradictions in his own arguments.  It was kind of anti-climactical, and it took me all of about two seconds to refute it, and I though "this is the guy who came up with calculus?  gah, as if".  I'd say he really was bullshitting, and likely assassinated.

I'm gonna pull Immanuel Kant out of my hat and make three assertions:

1 - That there is not a single shred of irrefutable evidence concerning the existance or nonexistance of God.

2 - That since we can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God, individuals are entitled to believe whatever they want for the sake of morality and society.

3 - That regardless of whether or not God exists, one's personal standard of morality must benefit both the individual and the community if one hopes to survive and prosper.  I believe here in Nerdfighteria, we call that "decreasing the suck, and increasing the awesome."

1 - That there is not a single shred of irrefutable evidence concerning the existence or nonexistence of unicorns.

2 - That since we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of unicorns, individuals are entitled to believe whatever they want about unicorns.

One thing to keep in mind about arguments about existence is the burden of proof, if the positive side cannot posit a decent argument in favour, this does not mean a stalemate.  It actually favours the con side of the argument. 

I'm still waiting for an operational definition

RSS

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service