Official Religion Thread

[Dad]

I'll just go with my mother on this one and leave it be. I won't be posting here anymore, because everyone has their own beliefs, and I have no right to try and change that, nor will I continue to argue with it. The best to all of you.

 

--DP

[Lemniscate]

^I don't really understand why you felt it necessary to announce you were leaving the thread, just stop posting.

 

As far as the logical fallacy arguement goes, once the first assumption has been accepted, the others all just follow logically from it.

Here is a proof of the first assumption.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Wouldn't that mean that there are an infinite amount of gods in an infinite quantity in all the infinite universes?

So by this logic...

2- Lets assume that within these various universes, there is 100% probability for everything possible occurring at least once within an individual universe.

3- Lets assume that within infinite universes, with infinite governing principals, that all things may be possible to exist.

4- Thus, an omnipotent, omniscient being can exist.

5- Thus, an omnipotent, omniscient being does exist.

6- Thus, by the nature of being omnipotent and omniscient, this being exists in all universes.

7- Thus, this omnipotent, omniscient being exists within our universe.

1. There are an infinite amount of universes. An infinite amount of possibilities.

2. There is an infinite amount of gods with an infinite amount of possible traits.

3. One of these omnipotent, omniscient gods could, for whatever reason, want to destroy our universe or wipe it from existence, and could very well due to our definition of omnipotent.

4. One of these omnipotent, omniscient Gods haven't, because our universe is still here, at least according to our own perception

5. According to premise 2, there is a 100% probability that one of these Gods could exist within our own universe. If our perception of existence is incorrect, there is a 100% probability that a God could destroy our perception of existence.

6. Therefore, either premise 2 and above are incorrect and there isn't an infinite amount of possibilities within these universes, or premise 6 and above are incorrect, and the nature of omnipotence is not what we perceive it to be.

 

This leads us to a few potential conclusions.

1. Multiverse theory is incorrect.

2. Multiverse theory is correct, but there aren't an infinite amount of possibilities or governing principles.

3. Multiverse theory is correct, and there are an infinite amount of possibilities, and god(s) can infact exist, but only in their own universes, and not in every universe at the same time.

4. Multiverse theory is correct, and there are an infinite amount of possibilities, excluding that of an omnipotent being existing.

5. An omnipotent and/or omniscient being could not be a conscious one

6. My logic is not sound. If so, then explain why.

 

Which one will you pick?

[Lemniscate]

If there are multiple omniscient, omnipotent beings, and at least one had malicious intent to wipe out universes, then there would be at least once such being that wanted to defend universes, now, if this scenario occurs infinitely, with one occurrence per universe, then it occurs once for our universe. Thus, that omnipotent, omniscient being which we consider God is the defender of this universe, and that omnipotent, omniscient being which we consider the devil is the attempted destroyer of this universe.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Thus, there could be a god that could destroy the defender, one that could defend against the stronger one, etc etc.

Endless recursion isn't fun.

[Lemniscate]

Whether or not it is fun, it is entirely possible.

In a state of omniscience and omnipotence, where infinite possible beings make infinite decisions in infinite battles, the existence of God is entirely possible.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Oh my lord, I hate multiverse theory x_x

It allows infinite refutations to any argument anyone could bring up on any side <_>

[Lemniscate]

Yeah, it does.

We can move on to a moral proof if you want.

I am fine just dropping the multiverse arguement entirely, as it is really a dead end no matter what we do.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Okay' date=' let me give a reasoning as to why God exists.

1- Lets assume that universes exist in infinite numbers, as is currently theorized.

2- Lets assume that within these various universes, there is 100% probability for everything possible occurring at least once within an individual universe.

3- Lets assume that within infinite universes, with infinite governing principals, that all things may be possible to exist.

4- Let assume that an omnipotent, omniscient being is called "God"

4- Thus, an omnipotent, omniscient being can exist.

5- Thus, an omnipotent, omniscient being does exist.

6- Thus, by the nature of being omnipotent and omniscient, this being exists in all universes.

7- Thus, this omnipotent, omniscient being exists within our universe.

8- Thus, God exists.

 

I have plenty more, if you want to see them.

[/quote']

By this logic there exists a god from one universe that would go into our universe and tell me specifically that he existed. The multiverse theory is also flawed not only by the countless contradictions it creates but by the fact that everything is predetermined, and as such other possibilities would not occur.

[Lemniscate]

Also by that logic there exists a God that would exist specifically to stop the other God from telling you of His existence.

Multiverse theory merely states that within an infinite number of universes, all thing are possible. Normally, that would not be a problem, as the overlapping universes would not conflict with each other, the only place where it begins to reach a logical dead end is in the consideration of an omnipotent and omniscient being, or, as must be accepted by the logic already presented, infinite omniscient and omnipotent beings.

[Sunshine Jesse]

The whole multiverse thing is irrefutable, so lets just drop that now. Its horrible as a proof because it goes nowhere on either side

[Lemniscate]

Okay then, here's another proof, it's a moral one, and the most simple one I could think of:

1. It appears to human beings that moral normativity exists.

2. The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.

3. Therefore God exists.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

But then a god would counter that god. Multiverse is silly in general.

 

What people call morals is simply a societally implemented means of making yourself feel good.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Okay then' date=' here's another proof, it's a moral one, and the most simple one I could think of:

1. It appears to human beings that moral normativity exists.

2. The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.

3. Therefore God exists.

[/quote']

Once again, begging the question. You have no logical reason to assume 1 and 2 are correct, and you even used the phrase "appear", which means you have no proof that your statement is correct on a logical scale. If you go by the explanation that most people assume this, then its appeal to popularity, another fallacy.

[Lemniscate]

I am too lazy at the moment to think of my own comeback to this, so let me also post the explanation that came with this from where I found it:

 

[spoiler=It's long]

Many examples of theoretical arguments for God's existence start from the fact of ethical normativity. Human beings are aware of actions as being right and wrong, obligatory and forbidden. Such awareness carries with it the thought that they are “bound” to do some things and bound to avoid doing others. Moral qualities have a bindingness attached to them shown in the force of the moral “ought” and the moral “must”. If I make a promise, the promise creates (ceteris paribus) an obligation to deliver what is promised. The normative fact is, first, not dependent on my own goals and ends and, second, possessed of a universal force. The fact that I am bound by the normative truth “do what you promised” does not hold because I have ends which I cannot achieve unless I fulfill the promise. The imperative is not what Kant styled a “hypothetical” one. It is rather “categorical”. It binds no matter what my particular goals are (see Kant 1996/1973 67; 4/414). That is linked to its universal dimension. I have an obligation to deliver what I promised, because anyone who makes a promise thereby (ceteris paribus) obligates him- or herself. The obligation created by the promise holds independent of my particular goals because it reflects a universal rule, holding at all times and places and applying to any human being as such.

 

Now we have a fact from which moral arguments for God's existence can proceed: there appear to be morally normative facts/qualities in the world. Many of these arguments claim that the postulation of God provides the best explanation of this fact. We must use “appear” to record the fact, because there is a venerable line of thought in philosophy contending that moral bindingness is not real. It is a projection on the part of the human mind. It is no more “out there” in the world-minus-us than is (on some accounts) a secondary quality like taste. I say that the whisky tastes sweet, appearing to ascribe a quality to it. But in truth there is no sweetness in this mix of chemicals. I am projecting a reaction which I and others have toward it. So: we can be realists or anti-realists about the existence of moral normativity.

 

Such projective accounts of moral normativity, of moral qualities and facts, offer one naturalistic explanation of the appearance of normativity. A projective explanation thus avoids the need to posit God as the best explanation of the fact that moral normativity appears to exist. Proponents of theoretical moral arguments will contend that projectionism is false to our experience and gives rise to forms of moral skepticism that are corrosive of moral thought and action. We cannot rule on such issues here. (For a very clear form of moral projectionism see Mackie 1977.)

 

A template for a moral argument for God's existence can now be given.

 

Argument I:

 

1. It appears to human beings that moral normativity exists.

2. The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.

3. Therefore God exists.

 

This schematic argument incorporates an inference to best explanation. We must now distinguish and set out Crude versus Sophisticated applications of this template.

 

 

 

This was part of a long essay by a Student at Stanford, as part of their doctorate, hence the number one next to the arguement, and the phrasing that suggests more after this segment.

[Sunshine Jesse]

I don't feel like arguing against that entire thing. Logic seems sound, but it doesn't take into account a person who hasn't been subjected to the average society's teachings, so it's not really completely accurate

[Dark]

This is by far the funniest thread I've ever seen. It just makes me so happy that you people defend God... just to make me laugh/entertain me! You must really like me! [/spongebob reference]

 

I've read the posts since my last post, and I have not received an answer of how God was created.

 

owait

 

Obviously, a God before Him created Him.

 

butwait

 

Who created that God?

 

owait

 

Obviously, a God before the God before Him created the God before Him who created Him.

 

butwait

 

Who created that God?

 

...

 

Ad infinitum.

[Lemniscate]

I didn't even see that question, must have been a ways back.

First, let me say, welcome back, Dark, I missed debating with you.

 

Now, as far as the above post goes, who says that an omnipotent, omniscient being had to be created? By nature of being those two things, the being is also omnipresent, and by nature of being omnipresent, can exist at all times, including the moment of beginning.

[Dark]

How can one say that the being is in fact omnipotent and omniscient, therefore leading to the assumption that the being is omnipresent?

 

And if you say the Bible, I will rip my hair out. Give me a logical answer, not some bullcrap.

[Lemniscate]

Okay, if a being is omniscient, meaning they know everything, and a being is omnipotent, meaning they can do anything, then they would have to also be omnipresent, by the nature of being able to do anything. One begets the other.

 

And don't worry, I am never going to use the Bible as a reasoning in a religious debate, as it defeats the purpose of the debate.

[Prada]

God's existence doesn't have any evidence factually and when looked at morally doesn't make much sense either.

 

I just saw this post and lol'd a bit.

 

Okay, I'm presenting a couple facts that I bombed my science teacher with. Sadly, his debating was horrible and really he didn't present any factual explanations to my half-assed arguments, hopefully you'll do better. ;D

 

Scientifically, there are MANY facts that lead to God.

 

1. I don't personally know what your beliefs are, but let me explain something about the atmosphere. The air we breathe is made up of 0.9% argon, 0.03% carbon dioxide, 21% oxygen, and 78% nitrogen. Technically, there are more gases, but they're variables and not important. I find it incredibly strange that we have such precise percentages for the gases that make up the air we breathe. My point? Any other amount of carbon dioxide or any of the gases would basically make air deadly. You're probably thinking "So? Who the hell cares?" Tell me this, how in hell do you think we have to have these PRECISE measures of gases in order to live if the earth were created by any other means than a sentient God who actually knew what he was doing and wanted to keep it this way?

 

2. Some atheists and scientists, including my ex-teacher, think that the earth is millions or billions of years old. The ocean proves this theory wrong. Why? Salinity. Over the course of time, freshwater sources, such as lakes, dispose of their saltwater using river outlets that lead out into the various seas and the ocean, which happen to be saltwater sources. Which means, if the earth were so old, the oceans would be MUCH more salty than they are now.

 

There are more, but it's 12:30. xD In the morning, I won't put a half-assed effort like I am now.

[Dismal Euphony]

God's existence doesn't have any evidence factually and when looked at morally doesn't make much sense either.

 

I just saw this post and lol'd a bit.

 

Okay' date=' I'm presenting a couple facts that I bombed my science teacher with. Sadly, his debating was horrible and really he didn't present any factual explanations to my half-assed arguments, hopefully you'll do better. ;D

 

Scientifically, there are MANY facts that lead to God.

 

1. I don't personally know what your beliefs are, but let me explain something about the atmosphere. The air we breathe is made up of 0.9% argon, 0.03% carbon dioxide, 21% oxygen, and 78% nitrogen. Technically, there are more gases, but they're variables and not important. I find it incredibly strange that we have such precise percentages for the gases that make up the air we breathe. My point? Any other amount of carbon dioxide or any of the gases would basically make air deadly. You're probably thinking "So? Who the hell cares?" Tell me this, how in hell do you think we have to have these PRECISE measures of gases in order to live if the earth were created by any other means than a sentient God who actually knew what he was doing and wanted to keep it this way?

 

2. Some atheists and scientists, including my ex-teacher, think that the earth is millions or billions of years old. The ocean proves this theory wrong. Why? Salinity. Over the course of time, freshwater sources, such as lakes, dispose of their saltwater using river outlets that lead out into the various seas and the ocean, which happen to be saltwater sources. Which means, if the earth were so old, the oceans would be MUCH more salty than they are now.

 

There are more, but it's 12:30. xD In the morning, I won't put a half-assed effort like I am now.

[/quote']

 

RaiN, I love you, but what the hell does the saltiness of the ocean have to do with God? Or am I just missing something because I've been awake for 27 hours straight?

[Prada]

God's existence doesn't have any evidence factually and when looked at morally doesn't make much sense either.

 

I just saw this post and lol'd a bit.

 

Okay' date=' I'm presenting a couple facts that I bombed my science teacher with. Sadly, his debating was horrible and really he didn't present any factual explanations to my half-assed arguments, hopefully you'll do better. ;D

 

Scientifically, there are MANY facts that lead to God.

 

1. I don't personally know what your beliefs are, but let me explain something about the atmosphere. The air we breathe is made up of 0.9% argon, 0.03% carbon dioxide, 21% oxygen, and 78% nitrogen. Technically, there are more gases, but they're variables and not important. I find it incredibly strange that we have such precise percentages for the gases that make up the air we breathe. My point? Any other amount of carbon dioxide or any of the gases would basically make air deadly. You're probably thinking "So? Who the hell cares?" Tell me this, how in hell do you think we have to have these PRECISE measures of gases in order to live if the earth were created by any other means than a sentient God who actually knew what he was doing and wanted to keep it this way?

 

2. Some atheists and scientists, including my ex-teacher, think that the earth is millions or billions of years old. The ocean proves this theory wrong. Why? Salinity. Over the course of time, freshwater sources, such as lakes, dispose of their saltwater using river outlets that lead out into the various seas and the ocean, which happen to be saltwater sources. Which means, if the earth were so old, the oceans would be MUCH more salty than they are now.

 

There are more, but it's 12:30. xD In the morning, I won't put a half-assed effort like I am now.

[/quote']

 

RaiN, I love you, but what the hell does the saltiness of the ocean have to do with God? Or am I just missing something because I've been awake for 27 hours straight?

 

I was mainly speaking about the idiots who claim the earth has been around for billions of years, as opposed to the some thousands that Creationists say it has been.

 

xD

[Sunshine Jesse]

1. I don't personally know what your beliefs are' date=' but let me explain something about the atmosphere. The air we breathe is made up of 0.9% argon, 0.03% carbon dioxide, 21% oxygen, and 78% nitrogen. Technically, there are more gases, but they're variables and not important. I find it incredibly strange that we have such precise percentages for the gases that make up the air we breathe. My point? Any other amount of carbon dioxide or any of the gases would basically make air deadly. You're probably thinking "So? Who the hell cares?" Tell me this, how in hell do you think we have to have these PRECISE measures of gases in order to live if the earth were created by any other means than a sentient God who actually knew what he was doing and wanted to keep it this way?

[/quote']

There are trillions of planets out there

There are trillions of chances for this to happen.

Our planet was one of the ones that got lucky.

If you consider how many billions upon billions of planets there potentially are in the universe, its likely, no, inevitable that a planet would have composition similar to ours.

We just happened to end up on it.

 

2. Some atheists and scientists' date=' including my ex-teacher, think that the earth is millions or billions of years old. The ocean proves this theory wrong. Why? Salinity. Over the course of time, freshwater sources, such as lakes, dispose of their saltwater using river outlets that lead out into the various seas and the ocean, which happen to be saltwater sources. Which means, if the earth were so old, the oceans would be MUCH more salty than they are now.

[/quote']

But it also can't be thousands of years old because then the ocean would be mostly freshwater :x

 

Also:

For a process to be considered a good natural clock' date=' it must contain the following: a known initial condition, an irreversible process, a uniform rate, and a final condition. With the salt clock, the initial condition is not known. The process of salt accumulation has been proven to be reversible and in constant change. There is also no uniform rate of accumulation of salt. The only criterion met is the known final condition. Because of these factors, the salt clock can obviously not be used as a natural clock to calculate any type of age.

I love google

 

Considering the uncertainty of the salt clock, carbon dating, fossils, etc, we can essentially disregard the salt clock as evidence of the age of the earth.

 

Next?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

God's existence doesn't have any evidence factually and when looked at morally doesn't make much sense either.

 

I just saw this post and lol'd a bit.

Congrats.

 

1. I don't personally know what your beliefs are' date=' but let me explain something about the atmosphere. The air we breathe is made up of 0.9% argon, 0.03% carbon dioxide, 21% oxygen, and 78% nitrogen. Technically, there are more gases, but they're variables and not important. I find it incredibly strange that we have such precise percentages for the gases that make up the air we breathe. My point? Any other amount of carbon dioxide or any of the gases would basically make air deadly. You're probably thinking "So? Who the hell cares?" Tell me this, how in hell do you think we have to have these PRECISE measures of gases in order to live if the earth were created by any other means than a sentient God who actually knew what he was doing and wanted to keep it this way?

[/quote']

Look at all the planets that aren't hospitable for life. The fact that ours got lucky doesn't mean it was planned by any means. The possibilities that other planets have hospitable atmospheres is very high. Millions of sentient civilizations could exist.

 

2. Some atheists and scientists, including my ex-teacher, think that the earth is millions or billions of years old. The ocean proves this theory wrong. Why? Salinity. Over the course of time, freshwater sources, such as lakes, dispose of their saltwater using river outlets that lead out into the various seas and the ocean, which happen to be saltwater sources. Which means, if the earth were so old, the oceans would be MUCH more salty than they are now.

Salinity varies from different places in the ocean. Not to mention there is a limit to the amount of salt in the entire world(how much there is), and the plates have been shifting from the beginning. This would mean the system we have now might not always be how it was. Even following the salt logic the world could be around 62 million years old, which may simply be when this system was in play. By salt logic the ocean water would barely have any salt if it were merely 4000 years old.

 

 

Lol.