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: 2198

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There is not only black , and white. There are many grey shadows between.

Not in describing the big bang and what (if anything) proceeded it, which is our subject. On this, we have only ignorance.

Don't tell me this is some kind of grey area. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever on this. We do not know.

The more science goes forward, the more we have data on hand to draw secure conclusions, even if they are not empirical or conclusive proofs. That evidence we examine to conclude what scenario might be the most realistic one.

Our ignorance vanishes as we learn more about nature. Until we have that evidence, there is still nothing on which to base your conclusion.

Gallup: What scientific evidence are you referring to? There is no scientific evidence for what was "before" the big bang.

Angelo: The mere fact that we have secure evidence on hand today, that the universe most probably had a beginning, opens the door for philosophical discussions and deductions.

So by referring to "scientific evidence" for calculating probability, or for what was "before" the big bang, you really meant "philosophical discussions and deductions" . That's not scientific evidence. In other words, you lied.

Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe...

Again, there is no basis to draw that conclusion. If nature existed without time or had infinite properties, there was no "prior", no beginning. The rest of the argument depends on this unsupported premise so: dismissed.

Gallup: Your reasoning didn't hold water either.
Angello: Which one?

The one where you said God exists because nothing comes from nothing and then invalidated it by exempting God and wilfully ignoring that nature, if infinite, required no beginning.

Tell me, why the mere existence of the universe cannot be used as evidence for Gods existence.

Burden of proof fallacy. It's your claim, so it falls to you to prove it, not for me to disprove it.

But since you're getting destroyed I'll throw you a bone: tell me, why the mere existence of the rainbow cannot be used as evidence for the leprechaun's pot of gold at the end of it.

Why should God be excluded as possible explanation for its existence ?

I didn't exclude any possible explanation. I asked to see your evidence for God. This would help establish whether or not God actually is a possible explanation.

I believe a intelligent designer is the best explanation for our existence.

It doesn't matter to science whether God did anything or not, because God is not a scientific explanation. Even if one presumes that God did it, science is about explaining how.

People can believe what they want, but "God Did It" has no scientific value, whatsoever.

If God did it, the scientific question will still always be "how".

Ouch, I'm repeating myself!

People can believe what they want, but "God Did It" has no scientific value, whatsoever.

What has ?

Seriously, you're asking "what has" scientific value? I could mention millions of books, or the millions of man-years that have gone into designing computers we're using to type every letter into these messages, and transmit them... medicine, transportation, electricity and electrical appliances, heating houses during the winter...

Really, what are you asking, exactly?

Quantum mechanics.

Then why call it god, when nature/natural has such a nice ring to it?

You know I've always wondered if there was a God.

And now I know, and it's me!


For one to be god, is life would have to be a video game, and you would have to have all the cheat codes enabled.

Robert, in reply to your (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?

Have you concluded that the sheriff has resigned his job and thrown away his jailhouse keys?

If you mention a multiverse as possibility without evidence, you can mention also fairy tales as being the origin of our universe. No difference at all.

@Angelo, Fairy Tale is fiction, while a multiverse is a proposed, scientific possibility, just as was the Higgs Boson. This also means science stays open to the possibility that there are other explanations, and that we just have to keep looking, discovering, thinking, and understanding.

Big difference.


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service