All they ever do is ridicule religion.
There are several very good arguments which logically prove the existence of an intelligent, supernatural Creator (such as, causality, prime mover, design, information origin etc.), but I have never heard EVEN ONE logical argument for the non-existence of God. They claim that a belief in god is illogical, so instead of giving us the usual tactics of ridiculing religion or making the spurious claim of having a monopoly of scientific wisdom, can we have a LOGICAL argument similar to those listed above, JUST FOR ONCE?
2007-02-15
09:44:31
·
22 answers
·
asked by
A.M.D.G
6
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
They are always trying, to caricature God as an old man in the sky with a beard, who works miracles. This, of course ignores the fact that what Christians actually believe in is a FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which by virtue of being the first cause, MUST ITSELF BE UNCAUSED, and thus NOT SUBJECT TO NATURAL LAW, so it has to be a SUPERNATURAL entity. As the first cause of everything material (according to the law of cause and effect) it has to be greater and more powerful than the sum total of everything that exists. Therefore if we observe something which exists in the material universe, such as human intelligence, this first cause, which we call God, has to be much more intelligent. If we observe love, or justice etc., likewise, the first cause has to embody these qualities to a greater degree.
2007-02-15
09:45:58 ·
update #1
elliot . . . . . .
"Here's a logical argument: "The concept of anything supernatural does, by definition, defy the laws of nature. Therefore it should not be believed without evidence."
You tell me of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, information and the universe, that does not defy the laws of nature. You can't, because there isn't one. You may try to hide behind such preposterous notions as a 'singularity' (in layman's terms A MIRACLE OR MAGIC) to try to get round these laws, but they are merely wishful thinking.
2007-02-15
09:56:38 ·
update #2
palomnik . . . . negative things, like cruelty or evil are simply the opposite of the good qualities of God, i.e. the absence of goodness or kindness. In other words, it is obvious that every positive must have a potential negative opposite. We have been given free will which is also a quaility of God. Free will enables us to have the capacity to reject the positive.
2007-02-15
10:08:11 ·
update #3
MeatBot® Dissonato... 6000™ ... . .. . . .
Tell me how the 'Big Bang' can create information?
2007-02-15
10:14:07 ·
update #4
I asked for logical arguments, but I should have known that all I would get would be cop-outs. The logical arguments for the existence of God are exquisite and have never been countered satisfactorily by any atheist. The best efforts I to refute them amongst the answers here are enough to convince anyone that they never will be refuted.
2007-02-16
07:59:38 ·
update #5
Dude at least you know what you are talking about. Just as you said not one of these gave us an actual reason for not believing in God. Their best argument is prove to us there is one. Well he asked you first, my friends so the pressure is on you. If you can't prove there isn't one then why should we have to prove there is one. And by the way atheism is a religion. It makes a philsophical asumption that there is no God. You can't reach that conclusion through science, only through your own biasts and assumptions.
Tell me if there where no God then there would have been an infinite amount of time before any event happened. How do you solve that scientifically? You can't you have no proof to support the existance or the non-existance of time before Creation.
And when we say that the Big Bang couldn't have happend because something can't come from nothing, and you say who created God? May we remind you that you yoursleves claim God isn't science so why would He have to abide by the rules that humans laid down?
2007-02-15 10:25:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by Theoretically Speaking 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
When presented with an illogical premise, the logical position to take is one of disbelief. If the illogical premise is not supported by any evidence, then it can be taken as being a fact that it is incorrect.
Or to put it in simpler terms, why don't you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? How can you be certain it does not exist?
And to respond to your follow up point about Christianity. I'm afraid you misrepresent your religion here. You claim the 'old man with flowing beard' is an image that's not been fostered by religion. I think you'll find that's incorrect. But you go on to say "what Christians actually believe in is a FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which by virtue of being the first cause, MUST ITSELF BE UNCAUSED, and thus NOT SUBJECT TO NATURAL LAW, so it has to be a SUPERNATURAL entity." This is incorrect. Christians believe in a god that interacts with this universe. That answers prayers and affects life in general. Christianity is not just a 'theory' about the origins of the universe.
More importantly, not knowing something (such as the exact origin of the universe) is not a proof of god. It is merely an area we do not yet have a complete understanding of.
2007-02-15 20:18:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by The Truth 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
I have yet to see a logical argument for God. Yours does not constitute one. None that anyone has used that I have found constitute one. Try actually studying logic. And somehow, I doubt you've been on here very long. There are some people here that are excellent at pointing out how God is not logical. Since I have to leave for a meeting now, I won't be able to enlighten you, but someone else will.
2007-02-15 17:52:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kharm 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Wow, no just wow... ignorance at work here
Okay, heres one:
If god is all knowing, why create a being knowing full well it will go to hell?
If god is all powerful, why create a world with suffering? For that matter, how can a perfect god create imperfection, why would a perfect being need anything? The definition of perfection is without need...
For what reason was the vast universe created if god created humans as his perfect species? Counter intellectual to say that we are the only beings in the universe in gods favor.
Specific to christianity? This could take all day, I'll just give one:
Why would a god slaughter innocent children because he was angry at a specific group of people? Why is he vengeful if he is perfect and good? Why is he, in a sense... Evil?
The list goes on and on, and by the way, you have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF IN ANY WAY OF A GOD!!!! NONE WHATSOEVER, DEAL WITH IT!!!
2007-02-15 17:50:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Here is a logical argument. If someone claims something but can not prove it, they are either completely wrong or they are making an assumption prematurely. You are the one who claims that Gods exist, so you are the one who has to prove it. Until you prove that God exist beyond a responsible doubt I don't have to make an argument that disproves God.
2007-02-15 18:40:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by jetthrustpy 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Your confused with logic and superstition. Saying the chupacabra created the universe is equivalent to your argument. Answer this, why dont give me an argument that proves the chupacapra is not the creator. Impossible isnt it. Well its not, use logic(no supernatural entities) and conclude the chupacapra is not compatible with reason.
2007-02-15 17:55:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Maikeru 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
*sigh*
You people. Geeeez.
Look, Blinky, I was raised in the Catholic church (and please spare me that lofty load of BS about Catholics "not being real Christians." I've heard that for years, and it doesn't wash). When I was in my late teens, I started questioning my beliefs, due to the obvious hypocrisies of religion. I spent five years on a personal quest for the truth. I read the entire bible, twice. I visited all of the major faith churches, including synagogues and storefront Lunatic Fringe churches. I interviewed a lot of people, and a lot of pastors. I spent a lot of time in self-reflection and self-doubt. My conclusion: There are no gods. None.
I would suspect many atheists have taken the same journey. We didn't just wake up one morning and say "There is no God," then go get coffee. You believers need to stop dismissing us so blithely.
BTW: The burden of proof is with believers. You can't prove nonexistence. Faith is not fact.
2007-02-15 17:57:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by link955 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
You can cop-out and be an agnostic like me. Don't believe in absolutes like the existence of a higher power or lack of one.
The half-life of a carbon sample makes as much sense to me as Jonah staying inside a whale for three days.
2007-02-15 17:51:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by TarKettle 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Sure. Omnipotence cannot coexist with omniscience. If you know what you are going to do in the future, you can't change your mind and therefore are not omnipotent. The bible says God is both, so the bible must be wrong.
Why can't the first cause be a supernatural big bang?
2007-02-15 17:54:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
IIn regards to the last above question....
don't think Christians have to prove anything! We aren't saying it's not true....the atheists are so the therefore it's on you to disprove Him...but you can't! You never will.
2007-02-15 17:58:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by nici a 2
·
1⤊
0⤋