If you can find a single argument that uses “god exists” as an axiom, please link me the source. There is an overabundance, however, of arguments concluding that the belief in a god/religion is illogical. These observations alone are meaningless, but I question your use (or misuse) of the term “axiom” to prove that said beliefs are, in fact, logical. Your arrogance amuses me. Can you please cite sources from now on? My own review of the different definitions of “axiom” didn’t help make any sense of using a statement like “god exists” as one legitimately.</p>
<p>
Good. We have defined the term “God.” Even if his proof is correct, all he has done is named the explanation “God,” and nothing else. This doesn’t imply “God” is the character from the Christian bible, nor does it imply anything. If the universe was created (if it even makes sense to say such a thing) by some cause, any other of your imagination’s wildest creations could be the explanation known as “God.”</p>
<p>I see this as a breakthrough, gotakun! You’ve admitted that there exists the possibility of a creator! Wow, that one post did more than 33 pages of arguments! </p>
<p>He goes into more depth about why that creator would possess the characteristics of the Christian God further in the article. All that second point is trying to say is that there if there is an explanation of the existence of the universe, that reason would have to be some powerful, infinite force, just to create something like the universe. We just call it God. You could call it the flying spaghetti monster, but the name doesn’t really matter.</p>
<p>For one of the first times in this thread he prefaced something with “if”. That means that there is some possibility, however minuscule he make think it is, of the validity of that proof, and the existence of a “creator”. He didn’t admit anything, just left room for some possibility of something else, which I think is refreshing. </p>
The possibility that some force caused the “creation” of the universe (again, I don’t know if that phrase even makes literal sense) is not the same as the possibility that a god did the same thing. Using the term “god” would imply intention, among other personifications, which are not implied by the operational definition used in the proof you cited. Basically, he used a misleading term… I’m sure there’s a fallacy for that. Hang on…</p>
<p>“Equivocation (No true Scotsman): the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning”
In this case, the term was plain mis*used<a href=“IMO”>/i</a>, but it was defined, so I guess we can consider it an alternate meaning in this scenario.</p>
<p>
I don’t agree with this. If a force did create the universe, that automatically should mean that the universe is not infinite, because something exists beyond its boundaries, which means the force creating it is also not necessarily infinite, and according to the proof, also has an explanation for its existence. There is also no reason to assume it is relatively powerful, because for all we know, it was some relatively tiny force that set off a slow chain of reactions. You’re thinking too much inside the box. ;P</p>
Honestly, the points made by the theist did not argue for the belief in the supernatural. I hate that the argument against science (read: reality, as best as it can be observed and measured), that it can’t be absolutely proven, is used as a justification for believing in anything else (other than arguments which CAN be absolutely proven). “Because you can’t absolutely PROVE what you observe and measure, it is valid to believe anything that cannot be absolutely DISPROVED.” I like the way the atheist used “desperate.” He’s absolutely right; it’s a desperate attempt to justify nonsense.</p>
<p>That’s not what he was doing at all. He was just pointing out that there are things that cannot be explained by science that do rationally exist.</p>
<p>Well, of course. There are plenty of other arguments to get from a “creator” to God. But even admitting the possibility of a “creator” naturally opens up the possibility that that creator is some omnipotent being.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe I’m wrong but did anyone say the universe was infinite? Isn’t it expanding?</p>
<p>By explaining how science cannot be used to prove certain things, he is discrediting science, so that a completely unfounded belief may have increased validity in the eyes of people like you, who believe he accomplished something he truly did not (like justifying supernatural beliefs).</p>
<p>For example, by saying that science cannot prove “that the past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age,” he is discrediting the ability to measure age. Like I said, while what he said is true, you do not validate anything by invalidating something else, which is why you can’t call his argument a justification for supernatural beliefs.</p>
<p>
If not, then why do you assume the force creating it must be infinite?</p>
<p>
I guess, but that doesn’t have any meaning. By definition, apparently the word “omnipotent” is subjective, so it wouldn’t be wrong to say the explosion resulting from atomic fission is omnipotent. (As far as the “being” part, it would probably defend on your operational definition.)</p>
I agree. What you said was very specific (“explained” vs proven) and very vague (“things”), and I agree with the literal interpretation of the statement.</p>
<p>yeah it’s something that someone who isn’t religious wouldn’t agree to—this guys argument is not convincing to those who don’t believe in god.</p>
<p>i just disagreed with your assertion that religious beliefs can’t be well-reasoned (logical). they can. ive written a lot of posts explaining this in this thread and a previous one.</p>
<p>i looked up a bit on what you said and found this:
</p>
<p>that’s just an atheist’s opinionexcept that it’s not. if the starting premises are based on something illogical (faith?!!!) how can the rest of the argument be logical at all??? if you pick absurd axioms, you can reach any conclusion you wantand usually wrong ones.</p>
<p>This is the concept of religious faith. nothing too uncommon here. this is something that a lot of people do—accept that god exists, straight up. </p>
<p>please don’t babble on and namedrop ‘argument ad populum’ or whatever your gay latin terms are—i’m answering your question ‘do people believe this?’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>with different premises, sure. this doesn’t really matter, though. if you think that this is relevant and aren’t just using this as rhetorical flair, then you are seriously misunderstanding what im saying.</p>
<p>all i’m saying is that a christian could set up a logical system in which his religious beliefs are consistent. YOU don’t have to agree with the premise ‘god exists’ (I personally don’t), but you must conclude that if you were accept that god exists, then his beliefs are logical.</p>
<p>NOTE: this means that this type of reasoning isn’t very convincing to people who don’t believe in god! my goal is not to persuade others into believing in god!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol when i say axiom, i mean ‘something you accept as true at face value so you can reason from it’. this is what most people mean when they say axiom. again, nothing controversial here. if you don’t believe me, read the wikipedia page on ‘axiom’. you are wasting time by picking at this.</p>
<p>more like: if accepting that god exists is logical, then his beliefs are logical.
it’s not. therefore believing in god is not logical.</p>
<p>and no it’s not an opinion. ‘accepting such-and-such exists’ is not logical unless you can prove/have evidence for it.</p>
<p>i can assert e.g. “i have a green dragon in my garage”. from there i can assert that it’s not red, that it’s smaller than my garage, etc. that’s perfectly logical. but it’s stupid, since i haven’t shown that the dragon exists.</p>
<p>that a christian believes that his/her belief is logical is independent of whether it REALLY is logical. a creationist can believe the earth is 6,000 years old… but it’s NOT. a christian can believe he is being logical… but he’s NOT.</p>
<p>when you reason, you have to start with something, or else you won’t get anywhere. all reason is based ‘on something illogical’.</p>
<p>I’ll take for example your belief (at least i hope you share this belief, lol) that murder is wrong. My guess is that when you trace back through your reasons for believing in this, you’ll get to some fact like ‘human life is valuable’, and kind of stop there. You don’t have a reason for believing that–it is just something you accept.</p>
<p>reason is based on observation. evidence, theory, proof.
basing your premises on god is not equivalent to basing your premises on observation. one is not supported by anything beyond your willingness to believe, the other is supported by reality.</p>
<p>‘murder is wrong’ isn’t a factual claim. it’s a question of what ‘should’ rather than what ‘is’ and such is irrelevant in this matter. ‘if you kill a person he dies’ is a factual claim. ‘you shouldn’t kill a person’ is not (unless you believe in a cosmic dictator who laid out the rules). ethics can help us know what to and not to do, but it isn’t an absolute—a sociopath which have different values will reach a different conclusion, which is valid, if despicable to normal people.</p>
<p>there is a REASON people who actually are in charge of things base our knowledge on science and not the bible/quran/twilight: because it works.</p>
<p>
look at the dragon example. it’s wrong that i have a green dragon in my garage.</p>
<p>the christian, when developing his logical basis for his beliefs, doesn’t care that you don’t share his belief in god. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>what does it mean for something to be REALLY logical–that it makes sense when one agrees to your premises? sorry dude, but the christian probably won’t play on your terms—and there isn’t much reason can do to reconcile yours and his beliefs.</p>
<p>you’re dismissing my argument into ‘that’s just your opinion’ again.</p>
<p>for something to be really logical/reasonable it has to start with reality and not contradict reality. an argument which includes believing in god fulfills neither.</p>