By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Arguments Against God

JRPG said:
appolose said:
Prove to me anything exists.
Actually, don't, I've been arguing about that idea for 2 weeks with Final-Fan now :P

 

Trying to prove wether God exists or not is like trying to prove to a blind person that colors exist.

If you can't see it you either have faith thats it exists or you refuse to belive it exists.

 

 

Bad comparison. Blind people can actually see colors if we have advanced enough technology, there's already ways for blind people to see, it's only a matter of time before they can see in color rather than black with white dots.

Also, you forgot the third option, you can have faith, refuse it, or do the logical think and admit you don't know.



Around the Network
WessleWoggle said:
JRPG said:
alekth said:
 if god exists it shouldn't be impossible to prove it.

Using logic to try to prove that something supernatural exists or does not exist is illlogical.

Define the supernatural. It's a useless, irrelivant concept. Everything is natural. Even if there is 'magic' or 'ghosts' it's not supernatural, it has a source, a cause.

Also, logic is the only way things can be proven, your statement makes no sense.

 

Why would logic apply to something that is not logical? You are trying to apply logic and rules to something no one undersatnds or probably ever will. You can't seem to grasp the concept of what God is. God is something you can't explain and thus will never be proven or disproved...especially with logic. Why waste your time doing it? What do you gain?

 



Since you posted this thought in its own topic, and I didn't respond right away, I'll repost my thoughts in this topic as well.

You do make a good point with the bolded comment when considered from the perspective that you view it, but I don't think you fully understand the standpoint that Christians look at God. You seem to be taking what sticks out to you, as a result of your views on the topic, and using it as you would like. This is not entirely bad. It is something that a lot of people do, even those who believe. It is a quality that we have as people, to speak from what we understand and what speaks to us.

Let me speak from my own personal standpoint as a Christian for a moment. I don't believe that God made us to be subserviant to Him. Yes, in the end He hopes us to believe in Him, but not by force. Also, just as you (or anyone) may think you (or they) love someone and not really love them, the same can be true of someone who says they love God. You could simply be obsessed with the other person or you might be using them to fill a need. Perhaps you just accept the person's existence. You could also just be saying it to get your way, or you could be saying it to appease someone else. You could be saying it because you are under the influence of another force all together such as drugs or a deluded sense of love. These are all possible in the diversity that is a fully capable human being. As a typical Christian, one believes that God created the world. While as a Christian, I believe that God created this world with everything in it and included sin in this process, to provide the best environment for us to reach our greatest potential as diverse, wonderfully expressive human beings. I believe that it is in our individuality and personalities, that give meaning to the words "I love you." Just as many people would rather hear an "I love you" from a unique person than from a drone conditioned to say it. Sin is as it is because it takes away from the person's heart and who the person is as a whole. It demeans the quality of the person and the meaning of their "I love you." Developing ourselves to such a heightened and meaningful degree as people may not be possible without the presence of sin. Making moral choices are important for growth and individuality.

The old testament was written as it is because Society was young. While they weren't incapable, just as any intelligent person without enough experiences, they may not be able to make all the connections necessary to make good decisions or to read between the lines. That is why a set of guidelines were issued. Similar to when you tell your child to or not to do something, because they haven't lived enough or developed enough to know for themselves. That is why the new testament is much more open to human decisions. It isn't the act that matters so much as the reason for the act, but it wasn't until Society had grown enough that they could have hoped to make those decisions well. I believe that Jesus giving His teachings and more specifically His dying on the cross was in many ways the symbol of the age of accountability for mankind.

I don't think I fully addressed your comment about punishment. I think, again personally from my Christian perspective, that children of God are the ones more subject to punishment. Those who believe but then ignore Him on a given issue. Most of the time it isn't so much that they are punished though. It is that they didn't do what He already knew to be the "right" thing to do, whether it be something that God intervened with or not, we all can say that there are choices and then there are "better" choices. Well God will likely lead one to the "better" choice. So by not choosing the better choice, of course they are left with outcomes that are not as ideal. Thus they are somewhat punished by their decision, but is that really Him punishing them or them punishing themselves, another tactic of establishing identity? Also, if a person were to live their life without that guidance and sought out an existence without God, then if they were sent to a location that did not have God in it, assuming that God, Heaven, and Hell exist in their absolute, then naturally the person would go where he had sought, a location without God, being Hell. So again, not so much a punishment as it is simply a chosen direction. The nature of that location is what it is, just as we know what to expect if we go to Walmart, though I don't think that we would consider what inconveniences are amongst what we came for to be "punishment." Obviously by that time, the person had come to terms and accepted the decision, so they are getting what they wanted so to speak. God has, however, been known to more directly intervene if He sees an absolute need to, something that at times might be more seen as a punishment. A typical Christian believes that God knows all. He knows what will and will not take place ahead of time, so if a direct intervention is necessary, then regardless if we understand the reasoning behind it, chances are it was still justified, but not in contrast with His "loving" nature, simply acting on knowledge that we do not have and may be essential that we not have in order for the process to happen as it should. Much of this has to do with an understanding of God and a trust for Him though. If you don't understand Him or trust Him, then this won't fully make rational sense or seem to matter.




JRPG said:
appolose said:
Prove to me anything exists.
Actually, don't, I've been arguing about that idea for 2 weeks with Final-Fan now :P

 

Trying to prove wether God exists or not is like trying to prove to a blind person that colors exist.

If you can't see it you either have faith thats it exists or you refuse to belive it exists.

If I find an unicorn in the woods and bring it along (and prove it's not a hoax), the existance of unicorns will be proven. Maybe someone who believed in unicorns before seeing the real one will have their faith confirmed, and people who deny unicorns will be forced to admit that they do exist. There might or might not be any scientific explanation for a while on them.
And especially if you do consider the bible etc to have been written by man, none of these gods is more likely to exist than unicorns.


Well, that's one sort of proof.


A blind person can be convinced about the existance of colours even if they can't see them because all the scientific explanation and proof on how this works are present. That's another sort of proof.

 

For gods so far, we have nothing.



Kasz216 said:
WessleWoggle said:
Kasz216 said:
WessleWoggle said:

Argument against theistic god of religions: No proof

Argument against a loving god that created everything: Suffering

Argument against the unknowable deist god: No proof

I don't know.  Without suffering there is no free will.

Without free will there is no reason to create people since they all just end up the same or as mindless puppets.

Creating a world where everything is equal and everything good gets a good reward, and everything bad gets a bad reward in effect creates a screen saver.

 

That's why it's an argument against a loving god. A loving god is not a balanced god.

 

I don't follow.  What's more loving then giving people a situation where they can grow into their own person?

But there are countless situations where this simply isn't true. For example, children born with terminal illnesses.

Now, I understand that some may say that once the earth, and everything in it, was created, we're left to our own vices. However, this doesn't fall in line with what some claim as 'miracles' nor does it adhere to what actually happens in the bible.

So, if God does, at times, interfere in our lives and his greatest act of love is to "giv[e] people a situation where they can grow into their own person" how does he allow young children, who have yet to become their own person, to die of illnesses they were born with?

It's not my aim to cast doubt into anyone, or assume that you haven't thought of this yourself before... I'm just genuinely curious as to how someone can convincingly answer this (I actually am very open-minded about this).



Around the Network
WessleWoggle said:
JRPG said:
WessleWoggle said:
JRPG said:
WessleWoggle said:
JRPG said:
alekth said:
Hey, let's use supernatural things to explain what we don't know.

 

Its just an endless loop. You can't disprove God, and you can't prove him either. Its foolish to bicker over it

 

 Which one? You can disprove some really easily.

Technecally you can't.

 

Sure its funny to laugh at the Elephant guy or Xenu, but you still can't really disprove their existance. There is no set rules for gods, and thus so there is no way to determine if they are real.

Most people pick a religion and have faith that it is the true religion. There is no way to say their choice is incorrct just cause you disagee with it.

 

Well, if a christian claims god is infallible and the bible is the word of god, their god is disproven.

Bible is inaccurate = The abrahamic god's holy book is fallible = Disproven

So what humans say dictates what God is?

What makes you think God is not perfect? Have you ever sat down for tea and quizzed him? The bible was witten by man about God. There may in fact be errors in it. Why do you think there are so many different holy texts in this world?

Just cause some humans say one thing does not mean its true or untrue about God. You say God does not exist, yet you have not given solid proof that he does not exist, and i can't give you solid proof that he does. Hence the endless loop i was refering to in an earlier post. People argue over the truth about God to justify their own beliefs.

 

This thread is a perfect example over how badly believers want to believe and how badly nonbeliever don't want them to believe.

 

 

What humans say don't dictate what god is, but for each individual human, their concept of god determines if their god could be disproven, that was my point.

I don't think our god is perfect, nothing is perfect, perfect is a concept that has no real meaning. I don't think the bible in infallible, but some christians do. Their god is easily disproven, as the bible is fallible.

I'm not arguing for either side by the way, I'm an agnostic. I'm arguing for your misrepresentation of logic, I don't care if god exists one way or another.

 

 

What is God is perfect and the bible is not perfect.

What if i said my God is perfect? Then your deduction is rendered useless, and My god can't be disproven.

This argument is as old as time. I'm sure smarter people than you and me have had this discussion, and it still ended in the same result, a stalemate.

 



alekth said:
JRPG said:
appolose said:
Prove to me anything exists.
Actually, don't, I've been arguing about that idea for 2 weeks with Final-Fan now :P

 

Trying to prove wether God exists or not is like trying to prove to a blind person that colors exist.

If you can't see it you either have faith thats it exists or you refuse to belive it exists.

If I find an unicorn in the woods and bring it along (and prove it's not a hoax), the existance of unicorns will be proven. Maybe someone who believed in unicorns before seeing the real one will have their faith confirmed, and people who deny unicorns will be forced to admit that they do exist. There might or might not be any scientific explanation for a while on them.
And especially if you do consider the bible etc to have been written by man, none of these gods is more likely to exist than unicorns.


Well, that's one sort of proof.


A blind person can be convinced about the existance of colours even if they can't see them because all the scientific explanation and proof on how this works are present. That's another sort of proof.

 

For gods so far, we have nothing.

 

The Q'uran is not man-made. That is a fact, as Prophet Muhammed was not literate. In the Q'uran many things have been stated which are being discovered now after thousands of years. I know for a fact that Allah exists. 



Initiating social expirement #928719281

alekth said:
JRPG said:
appolose said:
Prove to me anything exists.
Actually, don't, I've been arguing about that idea for 2 weeks with Final-Fan now :P

 

Trying to prove wether God exists or not is like trying to prove to a blind person that colors exist.

If you can't see it you either have faith thats it exists or you refuse to belive it exists.

If I find an unicorn in the woods and bring it along (and prove it's not a hoax), the existance of unicorns will be proven. Maybe someone who believed in unicorns before seeing the real one will have their faith confirmed, and people who deny unicorns will be forced to admit that they do exist. There might or might not be any scientific explanation for a while on them.
And especially if you do consider the bible etc to have been written by man, none of these gods is more likely to exist than unicorns.


Well, that's one sort of proof.


A blind person can be convinced about the existance of colours even if they can't see them because all the scientific explanation and proof on how this works are present. That's another sort of proof.

 

For gods so far, we have nothing.

Prove to me that unicorns don't exist.

 



WessleWoggle said:
JRPG said:
appolose said:
Prove to me anything exists.
Actually, don't, I've been arguing about that idea for 2 weeks with Final-Fan now :P

 

Trying to prove wether God exists or not is like trying to prove to a blind person that colors exist.

If you can't see it you either have faith thats it exists or you refuse to belive it exists.

 

 

Bad comparison. Blind people can actually see colors if we have advanced enough technology, there's already ways for blind people to see, it's only a matter of time before they can see in color rather than black with white dots.

Also, you forgot the third option, you can have faith, refuse it, or do the logical think and admit you don't know.

Well that analogy was not the greatest, but you got my point.

 



786_ali said:
alekth said:
JRPG said:
appolose said:
Prove to me anything exists.
Actually, don't, I've been arguing about that idea for 2 weeks with Final-Fan now :P

 

Trying to prove wether God exists or not is like trying to prove to a blind person that colors exist.

If you can't see it you either have faith thats it exists or you refuse to belive it exists.

If I find an unicorn in the woods and bring it along (and prove it's not a hoax), the existance of unicorns will be proven. Maybe someone who believed in unicorns before seeing the real one will have their faith confirmed, and people who deny unicorns will be forced to admit that they do exist. There might or might not be any scientific explanation for a while on them.
And especially if you do consider the bible etc to have been written by man, none of these gods is more likely to exist than unicorns.


Well, that's one sort of proof.


A blind person can be convinced about the existance of colours even if they can't see them because all the scientific explanation and proof on how this works are present. That's another sort of proof.

 

For gods so far, we have nothing.

 

The Q'uran is not man-made. That is a fact, as Prophet Muhammed was not literate. In the Q'uran many things have been stated which are being discovered now after thousands of years. I know for a fact that Allah exists. 

I feel ya man, but there is no way you can prove he exists, but you have strong faith that he does. Like i have been saying for the past hour, there is no way to prove or disprove God.