2007-12-16 05:02:39 · 40 answers · asked by Maurice H 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The "creation needs a creator" argument is ridiculous and weak at best. Somehow they think it passes as scientific evidence.
Or of course anytime they cite the bible as an attempt to prove the bible correct is always good for a laugh.
2007-12-16 05:06:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
How can you look at this baby, butterfly, sunset, kitten, etc... and not believe in God? Worst argument to me. In fact, I don't see how that is presenting any positive evidence for the existence of God at all. These things can be naturally explained. If you want to use all these cute and pleasant things as proof God exists and is love then what about earthquakes, deadly diseases, poisionous animals that inject venom that slowly dissolves prey from inside out, the whole predator/prey system the world is based on, etc... When you ask them about that it all gets pretty weird from there. Usually they invoke Satan and the fall or man's sins. Depending on how literalists they are it then becomes complicated for them to explain why animals have digestive systems for meat and incisors for tearing flesh if they haven't evolved and we only have this state because of the "Fall".
None of their arguments are very compelling for me and that is why I don't believe.
2007-12-16 05:14:32 · answer #2 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, I have not yet heard any good argument for any god. You can, however, categorize pro-god arguments. For example, there are many pro-god arguments that are based on wishful thinking (something MUST be out there, life MUST have a meaning), and others which entirely rely on prefabricated opinions ("it is written"). Both sort of arguments have no logical merit whatever, but I could not name any argument that has.
2007-12-16 05:09:16 · answer #3 · answered by NaturalBornKieler 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it incredibly is in certainty St-Anselm's ontological argument. God "is" by using nature, as a results of fact being is extra effective than not being. i've got have been given a level in philosophy. So certainly, it extremely is a superb one, as far as that kind of element is going. of direction, as quickly as you study Kant, he form of spoils the shaggy dog tale and proofs of the lifestyles of God are shown to not make experience in besides. yet it incredibly is yet another financial disaster. Descartes' is extremely appaling: -yet what if my reason is faulty? Wait a minute! God gave me reason! -If God gave me reason, reason could be good! -subsequently my reason may well be used to instruct God exists! you're able to form of forgive Descartes. He became into decrease than stress. In those days, you had to instruct God someplace to be referred to as a logician. So there it extremely is. countless fundies think of that's severe. that's the frightening section.
2016-10-11 09:59:19 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've changed my response:
It has been claimed that God sent the tsunami of December 2004 in the Indian Ocean because he hates homosexuals. Swedes, who are very tolerant of homosexuality, vacation a lot in the tropical sun in the areas destroyed and a number of them were killed by the flooding. Because God hates Sweden for their tolerance, he sent a monstrous wave to kill them in one of their favorite vacation spots.
It wasn't just homosexual Swedes that died. Just living in a country that tolerates them or not hating them enough yourself is apparently enough for God to go out of his way to get you. Not only did non-homosexual Swedes die, but also very many locals who were probably much more intolerant of them than any Swede. I have to ask though, why, if God was gunning for those evil Swedes, he didn't send a wave in the Baltic Sea instead, aimed directly toward Sweden itself. It would have killed a hell of a lot more of them than a wave in the Indian Ocean and spared a few of the other people.
Admittedly, this is an argument from Fred Phelps and his gang of gay-bashing idiot baboons and not typical of most Christians, but you asked for the worse that we have ever heard and this is most definitely it. Apparently God created the world for the sole purpose of hating it.
2007-12-16 14:36:23 · answer #5 · answered by Boris Bumpley 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Bible is the word of god. You have to be kidding. If god can't write any better than that it's pathetic. It portrays god as a brutal child molester. The whole premise that it is necessary to spill blood is so primitive, so barbaric. God made those rules? Give me a break. People wrote the Bible to serve themselves in the quest of power.
2007-12-16 05:12:29 · answer #6 · answered by valcus43 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"God is real. I know that because I heard my mom say once that she swears to God, and if Mom is swearing, then you know it's really really serious."
I don't think I even NEED to explain why it's not a good argument. Lol.
That was said to me by a thirteen year old boy, online. He was attempting to convince me, an atheist, that "God' is real. He wasn't very good at it -- he didn't realy seem to understand Christianity himself. But, I could tell by the things he said that he really did believe that he's right, and he wanted me to become a Christian out of honesty, from the heart.
2007-12-16 05:09:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Descartes' argument for the existence of God basically boils down to:
I have an idea of the perfect being (God). Obviously if this being didn't exist, it wouldn't be perfect, and thus a fundamental contradiction. Therefore God must exist.
That's like saying "I have an idea of the perfect unicorn. Therefore, unicorns must exist."
2007-12-16 05:07:41 · answer #8 · answered by jacob decibel 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The theists belief in the bible... it seems that they have no idea how it came into being, who wrote it, when it was written, how reliable is it.... all the usual questions we ask when picking a book to learn from. They base their whole way of life on an unsubstantiated collection of books....not knowing why Genesis was chosen to begin the Bible rather than another version of the creation story. (sorry I cannot remember it's name) I have a friend who greets me on the phone with "glad to hear your name is not in the Book today" ... he thinks god decrees when we are born and when we die. My reply is always... "it depends whether you believe in the book".
2007-12-16 05:55:36 · answer #9 · answered by freethinker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Hadn't you better believe in god just in case". OKay but then why don't you beleive in the thousands of other gods out there just in case
Or everything is complicated and we don't understand it so there must be a creator - but that creator doesn't need a creator thus completely negating the idea that everything needs a creator
ooh ooh ooh OR! "you can't see the wind can you" or "You haven't seen your own brain" those are completely WTF?! since there are other ways other than seeing with your own eyes to proving that something exists
2007-12-16 06:20:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋