why do you believe in god? - Page 3

"Darwin figured out how we get different kinds of turtles and birds and such. I don't believe if we had a million typewriters and a million monkeys in a million years, we will create shakespear. Unfortunately, it is all theory, as we will never be able to test it."
Nonesense, this isn't theory, this is metaphor. Put a play's worth of letters in a random order, do you get Shakespeare? No. Do that 1000000000000000000 times, will you get Shakespeare? Eventually.

There is no debate here, this seems self-evident. The point is a random thing done enough times looks non-random. But only if you sift through the heaps of garbage your monkeys (or your genetic mutations) produce. With the monkeys we have to sift throuugh by hand, with genetics, garbage random mutations lead to death.

If your genes are a play, then each generation is randomly changing a few letters to that play. How do we know the play is still good? If it isn't good you'll pick up some congenital disease/weakness, thus you don't reproduce, thus that bad mutation is gone.

"To believe that all things just happened, I find that to be unbelievable. I believe that because we don't know how things happen, we explain it away by saying, it just happened."
Its not an explanation, its a statement. The statement is : such and such happened (we don't know why). An explanation is : such and such happened because an all good and all powerful being decided.

You are describing yourself in your criticism.

.

You believe that a theory is fact and I believe God is real. Even if your theory is true and shakespear can appear out of a million monkeys with a million typewriters. Who created those million type writers with a million monkeys and put them together for a million years.

Accidents don't really happen, we just call them that because we don't know all the details that caused the happening.

" Even if your theory is true and shakespear can appear out of a million monkeys with a million typewriters."
This is just mathematics...

"and shakespear can appear out of a million monkeys with a million typewriters. Who created those million type writers with a million monkeys and put them together for a million years."
It might be totally arbitrary.

The original reason might be a 'so'. Even God does not help that problem (original cause) at all. What put God there? 'So"

Somehow when people use the word God they expect it to me 'sufficient answer' when in fact it doesn't solve any problem.

quote:

---

now lets think here a minute elemental, if god exists because thats how the universe works, then wouldnt it make sense that if we understand the universe better we could prove or disprove god.

---

Well, ya, that is on the point of what I said. If God can exist, then he does. So if you can entirely understand the universe, you should be able to prove or disprove God.
You know what though? Good freaking luck trying.

What I was talking about with the experiments and possibilities is that we can not make experiments to create a god. If the possibility exists, then God must exist because of what he is.
And as for trying to make experiments, I tip my hat to you if you ever succeed. I think God would sooner mess with your experiment so you find no answer to if he does or does not than you actually getting an answer.

" If the possibility exists, then God must exist because of what he is. "
God exists because God is a certain way which means he must exist?

Aaah! Circular logic. Don't you just love it?

Besides how do we know there is the possibilty he exists? My guess is you will examine are universe and conclude 'God is possible'. However, that would be contradicting your statement that trying to understand the universe to prove God is doomed from the start.

Anyway, just remember, circular logic doesn't work. The fancy word for this sort of argument is tautological. Any argument of this sort is wrong.

Here's an example :
* Suppose Paul is not lying.
* Whoever is not lying, is telling the truth
* Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.
The key word is the initial Suppose. You are using silmilar circular logic to prove God.
Your argument essentially is :
* Suppose God is necessary by nature
* Whatever is necessary exists
* Therefore God exists

If you were to explain why God must necessarily exist, then your argument is no longer circular and would be more convincing.

Hope that was clear.

.

...............
That is what I was talking about. If the possibility of God existst, then in that universe, God is necessary and must exist.
Because of what he is. If God exists, he is necessary to the survival of the universe. So if the possibility does exist that God can exist, then it is because the universe depends on him and he must exist.

So, I think we were on the same page all along, but my part, because I guess I couldn't get my words straight, I was just in a different language.

And so we come to the question... why would the universe need God?

Elemental says:

quote:

---

If the possibility of God existst, then in that universe, God is necessary and must exist.
Because of what he is. If God exists, he is necessary to the survival of the universe. So if the possibility does exist that God can exist, then it is because the universe depends on him and he must exist.

---

I understand what Dumbteen is saying, although I think some of his statements imply what I think to be jumping to the wrong conclusions.

I think your statement isn't really logical Elemental. Think about it. Possibilities don't necessitate anything to exist. Just because the movie The Matrix could be a possibility, that possibility doesn't make the matrix exist. And life certainly doesn't depend on the matrix existing. Maybe the matrix might exist sometime in the future, but definitely not now.

Your argument is bias in the fact that it assumes God exists even before you make a case for him. You and I know - I'm guessing that you're a Christian - that God must show himself to the world before the world can even know him. I think Dumbteen would agree with me on that point. Even though the world may show numerous, thought-provoking reasons - scientifical, seemingly miraculous reasons - that he may exist, God can't be shown to be true on those evidences alone. A case for God must include evidence of him interacting with his creation, if indeed he is the creator.

All of the statements you make about God shows that you assume to know what kind of god he is. You need to show credible evidence as to why.

DumbTeen. This is what I meant by wrong conclusions:

quote:

---

Besides how do we know there is the possibilty he [god] exists? My guess is you will examine are universe and conclude 'God is possible'. However, that would be contradicting your statement that trying to understand the universe to prove God is doomed from the start.

---

I think if you re-read his post you can see this is not what he meant. Elemental was plainly infering that you can't prove (or disprove for that matter) or create God in a test tube; by using experiments. But he wasn't saying that you couldn't find the fingerprints of God in nature. Which is what he was infering.

Even so, I think your proposition is good and valid.

quote:

---

If you were to explain why God must necessarily exist, then your argument is no longer circular and would be more convincing.

---

Although, I don't really think showing why God must necessarily exist makes much difference until you show that he does exist first. The better question would be to ask what reason is there to believe God exists, so we can find out why we exist.

I think a case for the resurection of Jesus can be made with data that are strongly evidenced, that are granted by virtually all scholars on the subject, even the skeptical and atheistic ones. And I believe this gives us a very good glimpse as to who God is and whether he exists or not.

I have five facts that I would like to dispute and build my case with. I will expound on each one of these in further posts if I may. Here they are.

1. Jesus died by crucifiction.
2. Jesus' disiples believed that he rose and appeared to them.
3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed.
4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.
5. The tomb was empty.

"If the possibility of God existst, then in that universe, God is necessary and must exist.
Because of what he is."
You must explain this statement. You must stop asserting this and start arguing this. What makes God so special that he is necessary? Isn't that the point of this debate? To prove he is necessary (or not). And suddenly you claim : voila! I know, he is necessary by nature without any argument whatsover.

You must find support for you supposition that God is necessary, rather then (as Strongclad pointed out) starting with the assumption (or unargued knowledge) that God must exist.

I gtg now, I'll answer Strongclad in a bit

I keep screwing up my words.

I guess it does depend on your definition of Gdo, but I am not saying that because there is a possibility or because of something being needed, it automatically must exist.

I am saying that if there is a possibility that there ever could exist that a supreme being with powers entwined with the universe could be created, then that thing must. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe. If the possibility exists that there may ever be something like that creature known as God, then it must exist for the survival of the universe.
If God could never exist, then the universe is an independant system.

You get what I mean? If the universe could in any way allow a possibility of having a God, then because of what God is (ie the almighty ruler and supreme being of the universe), the universe would not only allow that possibility to happen, it would depend entirely on it.

"Although, I don't really think showing why God must necessarily exist makes much difference until you show that he does exist first."
For Elemental's logic to work he must first show God is necessary. Perhaps the logic isn't necessary in this case however

"1. Jesus died by crucifiction.
2. Jesus' disiples believed that he rose and appeared to them.
3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed.
4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.
5. The tomb was empty."
One could come up with an equally convincing list of facts for the life of Mohamed or the Bhudda. However, religions are mutually incompitable. They each claim absolute truth and each claim that other religions are misguided infidels. It makes there claims rather dubious IMO.

Second, I don't think belief in God has sprouted from logic. One could argue one way or the other pointing at historical facts, but this is always dubious (sometimes the Christians win, sometimes muslims, sometimes God provides a good excuse to commit genocide on indian pagans, sometimes he provides compassion). Frankly, I've always been under the impression that belief in God is based on some subjective (which does not mean false) personal experiences. IE, something which the believer knows to be true but cannot be proven to others. Believing in your own experiences and God, is what faith is all about.

Attempting to prove God with logic, I have often found dishonest (which may not be the case here). Often using logical technicalities and ignoring other explanations. Because when one seeks to prove God, one already has the belief and THEN attempts to justify it with logic. Thus, there was something else which made you believe before any logic intervened.

Besides, I find logically proving God is completely incompatible with idea of faith. Why would faith be needed if God is logically the only thing to believe?

"You get what I mean? If the universe could in any way allow a possibility of having a God, then because of what God is (ie the almighty ruler and supreme being of the universe), the universe would not only allow that possibility to happen, it would depend entirely on it."
WHY? Why can't it just be a possibilty? Why can't it just be, an intelligent thing 'might' have made the universe? Just because the concept of God is something almighty, allgood, allknowing doesn't change that.

.

.