Is there a God?

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

The Moral Argument: moral arguments for the existence of God

The 5 Ways: Untitled

Are these "proofs"? no. The do, however, expose those who dismiss belief in a deity as illogical out of hand.

What unadulterated nonsense.

CS Lewis and Aquinas? REALLY? Allow me to paraphrase

Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis

If there is a universal moral code, there must be a god who designed it. Sometimes people disagree about morals, but there must be a moral code. Therefore there is a god.

At least Narnia had lions and stuff. This is utterly unredeemable, and yet it's quoted by every religious person who thinks he has a grasp of logic. It's nonsense, and it's not logical.

Originally Posted by Aquinas

The laws of physics are proof of god

Well, there is structure to the universe, so that's a valid point. But point #1 is just inertia, and it's started by the Big Bang. Who created the Big Bang? Who the heck knows? But that is far from evidence of a personal god. "Heavenly bodies always move the same way". Gravity. Inertia. We understand these as laws of physics, but they are not proof of god.

There are much better logical arguments for a creator than these - I suggest you go looking for them, because Aquinas and Lewis are right on par with Dawkins when it comes to ridiculous grandstanding with really no logical leg to stand on.

[OhioSaintsFan]

Originally Posted by SaintsBrazil

God exists and there is evidence for him. Here is a good one to start with.

Still waiting for you to present your evidence.

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

500 eye witnesses saw the resurrection of the tooth fairy? Who knew? Also didn't know that historians documented the existence of the tooth fairy.

Just because somebody existed does not mean that everything said about them is true. Maybe the people doing the writing had an agenda to push. Kind of like the midnight ride of paul revere and the boston massacre.

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Some of you "new" atheists need to go read some of the old atheists...their arguments were much better than the talking points you borrow from Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins.

So. Let me get this straight. You want "new" atheists to not use points raised by those who came before them? So those who believe in some higher power should not use any points raised by religious scholars, right?

[coldseat]

Originally Posted by Vibe Merchant

Agnosticism is already basically atheism. True belief in the modern day mainstream religions calls for unwavering faith, which agnostics don't have. So no sense in trying to be kind to the belief in a god by saying "you don't think there is one, but you don't know for certain." I'm as certain there is no god as you are certain there is no flying tooth fairy. They are one in the same category and I don't think belief in a god deserves some kind of unwarranted respect. Belief in a god deserves every type of criticism and request for proof as belief in a tooth fairy would.
I do agree it is irrational to only believe in things inside the realm of the explained. But, that's essentially what pushes all human beings, the nature to explore and experiment to figure out the unexplained. It's when you just throw something out there, e.g. god(s), to explain the unexplainable without ANY logical proof - then nothing truly matters. Because you have essentially given up on growing as a species.

That's a bunch of crap. Belief in God does not hinder or obstruct growth in exploring or explaining the natural world or in discovering new things about the world. Most of the worlds foremost scientist, explorers, doctors, etc. throughout history have believed in God in one way or another. If anything it's driven those people in their endeavors because they want to explore and understand further the universe that God has created.

To say that we don't know something or something is a mystery or that only God knows and being at peace with that truth, isn't some sort of weakness. Because at that point in time, we may truly not know. That doesn't mean that we won't know some day.

BTW, where does that indelible human spirit, that spirit "that's essentially what pushes all human beings, the nature to explore and experiment to figure out the unexplained", come from?

[OhioSaintsFan]

Originally Posted by coldseat

BTW, where does that indelible human spirit, that spirit "that's essentially what pushes all human beings, the nature to explore and experiment to figure out the unexplained", come from?

Millions of years of evolution.

[coldseat]

Originally Posted by OhioSaintsFan

Millions of years of evolution.

Uh huh. Amazing that we're the only species that's evolved to that point in those millions of years.

[johnnylightnin]

Originally Posted by Sarcastic

What unadulterated nonsense.

CS Lewis and Aquinas? REALLY? Allow me to paraphrase



At least Narnia had lions and stuff. This is utterly unredeemable, and yet it's quoted by every religious person who thinks he has a grasp of logic. It's nonsense, and it's not logical.



Well, there is structure to the universe, so that's a valid point. But point #1 is just inertia, and it's started by the Big Bang. Who created the Big Bang? Who the heck knows? But that is far from evidence of a personal god. "Heavenly bodies always move the same way". Gravity. Inertia. We understand these as laws of physics, but they are not proof of god.

There are much better logical arguments for a creator than these - I suggest you go looking for them, because Aquinas and Lewis are right on par with Dawkins when it comes to ridiculous grandstanding with really no logical leg to stand on.

On Lewis, you've built a straw-man. Your paraphrase was FAR from what he said. To lead your attack on someone else's logic with a fallacy tells me what I need to know about your grasp of logic.

Regarding physics, Aquinas does not presume to present evidence for a personal god, but evidence for something not subject to the rules of nature/physics. An unmoved mover.

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

On Lewis, you've built a straw-man. Your paraphrase was FAR from what he said. To lead your attack on someone else's logic with a fallacy tells me what I need to know about your grasp of logic.

Please, explain to me how there is a universal moral code when people have such different views of morality. That IS Lewis's premise. It's written in your link in black and white.

Regarding physics, Aquinas does not presume to present evidence for a personal god, but evidence for something not subject to the rules of nature/physics. An unmoved mover.

We agree on Aquinas. I've never argued that there cannot possibly be a higher power. We can't answer that. I only argue that there is no personal god that answers prayers and intervenes in our lives. Aquinas does not even attempt to refute that, this much is true.

But the unmoved mover is really a fancy way of saying "the big bang". That's the initial inertia in the universe, the first release of energy. Using his quotes today in the face of what we now know is overcomplicating something very simple - "Who caused the big bang?"

We will probably never know that. It's pointless to try to figure it out. It's certainly beyond the realm of science, not in conflict with it as some religious and atheists would have you believe.

[johnnylightnin]

Originally Posted by OhioSaintsFan

1. Just because somebody existed does not mean that everything said about them is true. Maybe the people doing the writing had an agenda to push. Kind of like the midnight ride of paul revere and the boston massacre.

2. So Let me get this straight. You want "new" atheists to not use points raised by those who came before them? So those who believe in some higher power should not use any points raised by religious scholars, right?

1. So you concede that he existed? Good. You've ignored the important part though. 500 people saw him after he had been dead for 3 days. That's pretty amazing. Their "agenda" led them to horrid and painful deaths. James, Peter, Paul, Stephen...all martyred. Yeah, it worked out after Constantine, but that's some dedication to the "agenda" that calls its followers to poverty, death, and meekness. I don't think it would sell very well today.

2. I think you misunderstood (I was probably not clear). I think folks like Russell and Kant made FAR better arguments against the existence of God than the "new atheists" (Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins...) provide. I don't really care about when something was written...it's about the argument. The new atheists are good at selling books, but they are not good at presenting a logical case.

[johnnylightnin]

Originally Posted by Sarcastic

Please, explain to me how there is a universal moral code when people have such different views of morality. That IS Lewis's premise. It's written in your link in black and white.

Lewis goes to great lengths to support this premise. You want me to type it all out or just mail you the book?

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by coldseat

That's a bunch of crap. Belief in God does not hinder or obstruct growth in exploring or explaining the natural world or in discovering new things about the world.

It shouldn't. It should be harmless and not even in the same realm as science. Religion can explain things that science can't. Whether it's correct or not, who knows.

But the problem arises when believers argue down scientific explanations of the world with religious scripture even after we've explained them. Evolution can't be real, the world was created in 6 days. There is no big bang, the universe is only 6000 years old. What dinosaurs?

Refusing to accept observation and testing of hypothesis about the natural world, explanations that we can demonstrate to be true, that make logical sense, and arguing instead on behalf of mythopaeic explanations invented thousands of years ago, can indeed hinder and obstruct growth in explaining the natural world - especially when our governments and institutions are guided by such a closed-minded approach.

Science and religion, in an ideal world, should never come in conflict. Religion asks the "why", science asks the "how". The universe was created as we know it by the big bang and we developed through evolution. That's science. Who did it and who designed the process of natural selection and set it in motion? Religion.

It's equally silly for scientists to pretend they know that there is no god, and for religious people to pretend that the universe is thousands of years old. If people really "only believed what they could see or hear," they'd realize that there is no certainty in atheism. The point is - it doesn't matter what god is or if he/she/it even is.

[insidejob]

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

1. So you concede that he existed? Good. You've ignored the important part though. 500 people saw him after he had been dead for 3 days. That's pretty amazing. Their "agenda" led them to horrid and painful deaths. James, Peter, Paul, Stephen...all martyred. Yeah, it worked out after Constantine, but that's some dedication to the "agenda" that calls its followers to poverty, death, and meekness. I don't think it would sell very well today.

2. I think you misunderstood (I was probably not clear). I think folks like Russell and Kant made FAR better arguments against the existence of God than the "new atheists" (Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins...) provide. I don't really care about when something was written...it's about the argument. The new atheists are good at selling books, but they are not good at presenting a logical case.

Is the Bible the only book that tells of what Jesus did while on this planet? If so, tell me what it says about his life from age 13-30.

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Lewis goes to great lengths to support this premise. You want me to type it all out or just mail you the book?

I agree he went to great lengths, and I've read it at length.

I simply think it's ridiculous hogwash.

[johnnylightnin]

Originally Posted by insidejob

Is the Bible the only book that tells of what Jesus did while on this planet? If so, tell me what it says about his life from age 13-30.

It says he grew in wisdom and stature and favor with men.

Josephus (a Jewish historian) also makes mention of Jesus.

[johnnylightnin]

Originally Posted by Sarcastic

I simply think it's ridiculous hogwash.

You don't believe in moral absolutes? Or is it that you don't attribute them to a "higher power". It sounds like you don't believe they exist.

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

It says he grew in wisdom and stature and favor with men.

Josephus (a Jewish historian) also makes mention of Jesus.

Few historians or even atheists would deny the existence of Jesus. He was a real person with some pretty good ideas who started a movement, one of the largest of its kind in the history of man.

It's the idea of him being god's baby and god at the same time, being resurrected after dying, and taking all the souls to heaven but only if they promise to like him first that most atheists would take issue with.

Jesus is the success story among many, many, many cult leaders since the dawn of man. (I don't mean cult in the negative connotation, so calm down) Most of them didn't succeed. Perhaps Jesus did because he had such a great, tolerant, peaceful message in a time that really needed it. But Jesus' followers went on to do the first thing every prophet's most devoted do - corrupt his message into a mandatory exclusivity where you must accept them and join them or be cast into hell - and they subsequently forgot what the hell he was trying to teach them in the first place.