Do you believe in god?

[Kopite]

I suggest you read this article, to help form your opinions.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm

Again, I'm not trying to force me beliefs on you, just trying to back up my claim.

[Collin Li]

You don't need to believe in God for scientific principles to make sense. You just need to observe that macroscopic trends seem to fit a regular mathematical model, for example: Newton's models of motion.

[ninwa]

"Published in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46/1: (2003): 111-23."
Hardly an objective source. Already this takes away some of the credibility of those arguments because it's obvious that they will be at least somewhat biased.

I had a quick scan through and these arguments make no sense. What exactly is the article suggesting? That because the concept of scientific law has things in common with how people perceive God to be, that proves the existence of God?

I won't have time to read through it properly until after my last exam on the 21st, but from a glance that appears to be the basis for the entire argument.

e.g.
Beauty of law

Scientific laws, especially ?deep? laws, are beautiful. Scientists have long sifted through possible hypotheses and models partly on the basis of the criteria of beauty and simplicity. Why? They clearly expect new laws, as well as the old ones, to show beauty and simplicity. Though beauty has not been a favorite topic in classical expositions of the doctrine of God, the Bible shows us a God who is profoundly beautiful. He manifests himself in beauty in the design of the tabernacle, the poetry of the Psalms, and the elegance of Christ?s parables, as well as the moral beauty of the life of Christ.

The author is claiming that because scientific laws are beautiful, and God is beautiful, this proves the existence of God.

It also goes a bit into the old "science explains things in the Bible therefore the Bible is true therefore God exists" argument. It's already been stated in this thread why this argument is logically fallacious.

Have you actually read through this article? Can you honestly say that this author's arguments are logical and reasonable?

Collin (and brendan if you're still watching this thread lol) if you have time, could you please read through the article he's provided. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[brendan]

If two-thirds of scientists believe that there is a God, surely that hints that there is some evidence for His existence?? Enough to sway the majority??

I think you undermined your own argument well enough by then saying:

just because scientists believe in a God, doesn't mean that God exists.

If the proposition is that there exists a god, your argument is yet again another logically flawed argument; an argumentum ad populum, a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it to be true.

If the proposition is that there exists evidence for a god. Then your argument:

x% of people believe in proposition A.
Therefore evidence for proposition A exists.

is still completely flawed and wrong; the conclusion simply doesn't follow - it is a non sequitur.

[brendan]

A lesson in logic - a list of logical flaws committed so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
"a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it"

If two-thirds of scientists believe that there is a God, surely that hints that there is some evidence for His existence?? Enough to sway the majority??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."

What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???

Dinosaurs, or creatures of the like, were mentioned in the Bible, so you can't really use that old Darwanism line again..... The Big Bang is probably the worst theory ever created by mankind. It's exactly like saying, 'Oh look there's a TV, it's obviously been created by a Big Bang at TV warehouse!!!!' Scientists can't even explain where the original 'gas clouds' came from. How do you explain that part of the theory??? 'Gas clouds' cannot be conjured out of thin air. Or were they created by something else?? A God perhaps??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference."

"a narrow minded mind, such as what Brendan is displaying"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
"Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises."

I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
"False analogy is a fallacy applying to inductive arguments"

You can't see magnetism or gravity

You believe it because you see it works and the effects it has but you don't see what its physically is. Well I don't think you can see force...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
"The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."

i know for a fact that even the greatest scientists of the past believe the existence of something superior. are you saying that they were all illogical to think that way?

Yes i do believe in God.
Ok now here is proof stating that Islam is the truth.
Really interesting stuff guys. These facts really stunned me, i think you guys should read it too.

This list is by no means exhaustive.

If the arguments for the existence of a god don't evolve, or rather 'intelligently design' themselves into something more reasoned and cogent then this list will keep on growing.

[asa.hoshi]

You cannot rely on wikipedia all the time. People can change/edit those pages for all I know.

I am incapable of presenting logical arguments in this thread according to you.

So will you be willing to talk to my leader in person rather than posting on here, pointing all our argument flaws and using wikipedia as a credible source? I'm sure you will have a good chat. You can bag, point out all his flaws through a conversation.

[enwiabe]

Do you not see how truly brainwashed you are, asa.hoshi? You take the word of this "leader" as gospel. You want him to fight your battles. You can't hold your own logically. You HAVE to be "lead". You are a mere sheep, a brainwashed follower in life. That's all you are. It's actually pathetic that you hide behind this "leader" fellow. You are so simple that you take the logic of Brendan's arguments as an attack on your faith, when the two are completely inequitable. Logic is rational and the blind faith that you exhibit is irrational.

You are so simple a person that you cannot handle this inconsistency in your feeble beliefs system, and so you get defensive and retreat into the diatribe which has been fed to you from an early age. I truly feel sorry for you. You have been bred in ignorance.

[asa.hoshi]

Do you not see how truly brainwashed you are, asa.hoshi? You take the word of this "leader" as gospel. You want him to fight your battles. You can't hold your own logically. You HAVE to be "lead". You are a mere sheep, a brainwashed follower in life. That's all you are. It's actually pathetic that you hide behind this "leader" fellow. You are so simple that you take the logic of Brendan's arguments as an attack on your faith, when the two are completely inequitable. Logic is rational and the blind faith that you exhibit is irrational.

You are so simple a person that you cannot handle this inconsistency in your feeble beliefs system, and so you get defensive and retreat into the diatribe which has been fed to you from an early age. I truly feel sorry for you. You have been bred in ignorance.

oi im only 17. still got another 7months until im 18. im no adult yet. then of course im a sheep.

and this is not fair. you are attacking me personally.

[brendan]

So will you be willing to talk to my leader in person rather than posting on here, pointing all our argument flaws and using wikipedia as a credible source?

That is nonsense. The arguments i showed are still logically flawed regardless of the content of the wikipedia articles. In fact i have previously showed them to be logically flawed. I only provided a link to these wikipedia articles so so that people can see further examples of such logical fallacies. Again, questioning wikipedia's credibility is irrelevant and it has no bearing on the lack of soundness and cogency in your arguments. Come to think of it, this is a fallacy of itself - logical fallacy of irrelevance, in the sense that wikipedia may be anonymously edited, but that doesn't change the the lack of soundness and cogency of the arguments i listed above. Additionally your comment about wikipedia may also be described as a red herring - an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue in question, and is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.

I am incapable of presenting logical arguments in this thread according to you.

You make the further mistake of implying that your arguments are wrong or flawed just because I think they are flawed. Your arguments are conceptually flawed and logically fallacious regardless of whether I even exist. I have shown many of your arguments to be wrong, and they were wrong before I showed them to be wrong, and they will be wrong after I die.

This sort of argument "i know for a fact that even the greatest scientists of the past believe the existence of something superior. are you saying that they were all illogical to think that way?" for the existence of a god was completely flawed before I showed them to be flawed, and they will continue to be flawed long after I die.

[brendan]

I suggest you read this article, to help form your opinions.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm

Again, I'm not trying to force me beliefs on you, just trying to back up my claim.

How does it prove your claim that a god exists?

[melodrama]

btw kopite, it's arrogant for your leader to suggest that non-believers are miserable nihilists. i believe that's another ad hominem attack, and i refer him/her to my existentialist post.

[Collin Li]

Yeah, I don't think it's even necessary to be an existentialist, unless I've automatically defined my existential values without realising it.

All that matters, as an individual, is that I am only doing mutually agreeable things when it comes to actions involving second parties. What does it matter what my spiritual values are? Some people don't have them. People have their own values (is this existentialist?) and they should be allowed to pursue them as long as it is not limited by mutual agreement (i.e: someone with the value that Jews should die cannot live by that value because the Jews would not agree to it). However, if your values include experimenting with drugs, there happens to be no second party! Those choices are merely up to yourself, not some parental government.

Does this make me nihilist? No. This makes me accepting of uncertainty, and respectful of all individual niches.

[Defiler]

Do you not see how truly brainwashed you are, asa.hoshi? You take the word of this "leader" as gospel. You want him to fight your battles. You can't hold your own logically. You HAVE to be "lead". You are a mere sheep, a brainwashed follower in life. That's all you are. It's actually pathetic that you hide behind this "leader" fellow. You are so simple that you take the logic of Brendan's arguments as an attack on your faith, when the two are completely inequitable. Logic is rational and the blind faith that you exhibit is irrational.

You are so simple a person that you cannot handle this inconsistency in your feeble beliefs system, and so you get defensive and retreat into the diatribe which has been fed to you from an early age. I truly feel sorry for you. You have been bred in ignorance.

Attack the argument, not the person.

--- Anyway, a few cents on my own.

You cannot prove that God exists (I will capitalise the name out of respect, not because I believe personally) or does not exist. Now a cynical atheist would say: well, you said the heavens were in the sky, and we've passed that now, and God wasn't found. All the evidence points towards phenomena such as natural selection, the big bang and so forth have created the earth, not some 'higher being'.
The religious person would perhaps argue: 'How on earth did the quarks and gluons get there in the first place?'.
Perhaps the retort would be: 'Well how did God come to be?'
Counter-retort: 'He was always there'
Riposte: 'Maybe the matter was always just there'
Addon Riposte: 'That goes against the theory - matter cannot be created or destroyed'.
Counter-Riposte: Dude, you are using the Internet, you like science... let's go chill or something.
Counter-Counter Riposte: Okay, but you liked Diablo, that game had stuff to do with religion - so you find it interesting... Guitar Hero anyone?


Anyway, the point being is - arguing for and against the existence of God is ridiculous - believe or disbelieve to your heart's content. It is when religion or atheism is used as a propaganda tool to disparage those who believe differently, is when the whole notion of religion becomes a dangerous game.

[Kopite]

A lesson in logic - a list of logical flaws committed so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
"a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it"

If two-thirds of scientists believe that there is a God, surely that hints that there is some evidence for His existence?? Enough to sway the majority??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."

What scientifice evidence do you have that the earth wasn't???

Dinosaurs, or creatures of the like, were mentioned in the Bible, so you can't really use that old Darwanism line again..... The Big Bang is probably the worst theory ever created by mankind. It's exactly like saying, 'Oh look there's a TV, it's obviously been created by a Big Bang at TV warehouse!!!!' Scientists can't even explain where the original 'gas clouds' came from. How do you explain that part of the theory??? 'Gas clouds' cannot be conjured out of thin air. Or were they created by something else?? A God perhaps??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference."

"a narrow minded mind, such as what Brendan is displaying"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
"Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises."

I just know some people who don't believe in God regularly get drunk, hurt others, have no respect, get divorce, have one night-stands and so on. But im sure that you guys are not like that. I think that is evidence in itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
"False analogy is a fallacy applying to inductive arguments"

You can't see magnetism or gravity

You believe it because you see it works and the effects it has but you don't see what its physically is. Well I don't think you can see force...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
"The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."

i know for a fact that even the greatest scientists of the past believe the existence of something superior. are you saying that they were all illogical to think that way?

Yes i do believe in God.
Ok now here is proof stating that Islam is the truth.
Really interesting stuff guys. These facts really stunned me, i think you guys should read it too.

This list is by no means exhaustive.

If the arguments for the existence of a god don't evolve, or rather 'intelligently design' themselves into something more reasoned and cogent then this list will keep on growing.

damn....can't see the rest of the thread beneath ur post.

anyways, yeah no-one can prove to the atheists satisfaction that God exists. and as clearly 'evidenced' by your 'logical fallicies' beliefs and wiki articles, i don't think myself or asah.hoshi are getting anywhere in succesfully validating our beliefs.

but have you actually addressed the comments of my fellow church goers??? or actually chosen to re-track ground and attack our previous statements because they are not illogical??? and you can't revert to your wiki quoting???

sorry if you have, i can't read under your above post, as i am capped

Do you not see how truly brainwashed you are, asa.hoshi? You take the word of this "leader" as gospel. You want him to fight your battles. You can't hold your own logically. You HAVE to be "lead". You are a mere sheep, a brainwashed follower in life. That's all you are. It's actually pathetic that you hide behind this "leader" fellow. You are so simple that you take the logic of Brendan's arguments as an attack on your faith, when the two are completely inequitable. Logic is rational and the blind faith that you exhibit is irrational.
.

So what if asa.hoshi alone can't validate his beliefs himsef??? He's a 17 year old guy, and asking for advice on how to prove his beliefs from people who are probably more knowledgeable than him in this area is justified.

[Kopite]

[quote="Kopite]I suggest you read this article, to help form your opinions.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2003Why.htm

Again, I'm not trying to force me beliefs on you, just trying to back up my claim.

How does it prove your claim that a god exists?
[/quote]

That sir, is called putting words in people's mouths. With that article, I never said it proved that God existed. I merely suggested that people read it to actually gain a greater understanding of the issue at hand.