Let's have some fun. Play god's advocate. I thought this would be easier. Arguing for god is not easy, especially if you don't use the holy books. My best shot.

(A) I just feel god, in my heart.

I went like this for years until I admitted to myself that I was talking to myself. I was probably a result of childhood indoctrination. It' a weak argument.

(B) There has to be eternal "justice"; what is the point of being a good person. Why not just be a thief and do what ever you want to make yourself happy?

This is the best argument for god, I think. What "goes around-comes around" here on earth, but not always. Granted, it is just wishful thinking that fairness is somehow owed to us.

(C) Something had to create all this

I went with this for a while. Then I figured out that it is "small thinking" and an imposition of our limited life experience.

That's all I got. Take away the divinity of the holy books and its a hard sell. What is your best argument for the existence of god?





Views: 2206

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hmm. i think you just proved that the singularity from  the big bang,  did not need a creator.

How do you draw this conclusion based on what i said ?

"I have not defined god as a creature."

Who cares?

Then what do you care about to debate me at all, if you are not interested to know what exactly my standpoint and belief is ?

Then what do you care about to debate me at all?

Did you think this was a debate? People who debate, bring facts with them, and you have none, so this is a conversation, not a debate.

A fairly one sided conversation at that. He only hears himself.

Now do you see why, last time he was here, I suggested everyone ignore him?

Did you think this was a debate? People who debate, bring facts with them, and you have none, so this is a conversation, not a debate.

I have presented plenty of facts already. Keep ignoring them, you have already shown, you are not willing to learn. You are not open to consider God. You do not want God in your life. Probably, because you do not know Gods character.

No, I'm not open to considering another person's fantasy, unless of course she's very attractive, and I'm somewhere in the middle of it.

"Angelo said.....You do not want God in your life. Probably because you do not know God's character."

Angelo, you do not know God's character either! First God does not exist, so how could you? Second, the god of the bible is one evil SOB. Of course I do not want someone like that in my life! Third, if I were to describe God, it would be the unknowable and incomprehensible, which leaves knowing his character out of the question.

I love it when Christians claim to know God. They will say things like, "God cannot Lie" then I will quote the verse "All things are possible with god"

As if lying is worse than genocide

And, by the way, you did not understand what I said in my first post to you.


Angelo is no longer a member.

["chance" and "physical necessity"] do not describe the process, but the mechanism upon the processes happened.


No. Thats exactly what we are discussing about.

Gallup: Assuming by 'chance' you mean hit or miss with one or more attempts, then on what basis do you calculate the probability [that the universe would come into existance]?
Angelo: There are many calculations out there...

You avoided the question.

No, i don't. I have answered right afterwards.

But we know the answer: you have no data on which to base that conclusion.

I have plenty of data, and i have posted just a example. You ignore it, you prove dishonesty.

You are simply declaring that the origin and nature of the universe are highly improbable events.

I declare it based on scientific facts. Thats a fact, ignore it or not, doesnt matter. Just to give one example. The cosmological constant is finely tuned  on a precision of one to 10^120. Thats a one with one hundred twenty zeroes.

Gallup: If there's one universe the odds are small. But if there are billions the odds are good. If there's an infinite number then it's certain.

There is no evidence that there are billions of universes beside ours. thats just baseless speculation.

You have no evidence for God.
Our reality CAN BE evidence for Gods existence. Ignore that, and you are not to be taken seriously.
 I don't need evidence for multiverses. They are speculation as I have said all along.
So why then postulate it as a possible alternative to God at all ?

My statement above was part of the example that we don't understand the event that originated the universe.

We understand a lot. Check the Big Bang Theory.

To the same point: general relativity and special relativity break down in describing the big bang.

That does not mean, we cannot draw secure deductions, namely that most probably our physical universe had its birth with the Big Bang. Ask mainstream scientists, like Vilenkin, Davies, Guth, Hawkins et al.

How do you claim to assign probability to that event when the most advanced physics we've got can't touch it? Show me your work. Let's see your data. Oh, you have none? Dismissed!

The quest goes much further. Its also about the fine tuning of the universe, chemical evolution, ariese of life, biodiversity, and features like consciousness, the hability of speech, sex, etc.

Gallup: If existing requires a creator, then what created God?
Angelo: Nothing. God is a necessary being, withoug a beginning, and without a end.

Your premise: nothing comes from absolutely nothing. You invalidate your own premise by exempting God.

No, i did not. how do you draw this conclusion ?

But you do offer the new premise: "there must have been something without beginning, eternally," which is infinity.

Correct. So what ?

You avoided the question, Angelo. I said nature, not the universe. I'm referring to our lack of understanding and the eventuality that there is more to nature than the observable universe or the first event within it: the big bang.
You mean more physicial things, right ? Any evidence to back up this claim ?

The answer is that nothing prevents nature from having 'no beginning' in a way we don't understand yet. Thus, God vanishes in a puff of "unnecessary".

As said, there are strong scientific and philosophic reasons to deny this, see here :


The key word there Angelo, was "infinite". If nature is infinite with regard to time or related properties, then it requires no beginning.
Arguments under the former category involve showing that the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible. If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist. Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite. From a scientific perspective, the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology.

Hey, TA'ers, let's play a game! Let's those of us who drink, each have a snort every time he parrots:

"The cosmological constant is finely tuned  on a precision of one to 10^120. Thats a one with one hundred twenty zeroes."

Those who don't drink, can have a toke or something, I don't have any rules --

I gave you evidence Angelo - I gave you Stephen Hawking - the greatest astrophysicist of his time - himself saying there's no god. I gave you a link to the newspaper article about Hawking's new book, ALSO saying there's no god. I explained how we life-forms fine-turned ourselves to fit our universe, and you have ignored it all. You're not here to debate, or to learn anything, you're here to spout your stupid, senseless message and satisfy your Mentor that you gave it the good try, at which time, he will pat you on the head and say, "Good Boy!"

That's really what it amounts to, and here we are, all wasting our time.


© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service