Do you believe in god?

[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?

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.

1. What claim were you trying to "back up" then, if not the claim that there exists a god?
2. The topic of is this thread is "do you believe in god", is the issue at hand not the existence of a god?

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,

1. They are not "my" logical fallacies. Your arguments were simply flawed, regardless of whether I bothered to point them out. Logical fallacies are not a "belief".

2. The arguments i quoted are still logically flawed regardless of the content of the wikipedia articles.

I only provided a link to these wikipedia articles so so that people can see further examples of such logical fallacies. The articles were not "evidence" for any proposition related to the existence of god - they are examples of general logical fallacies that not confined to just debates over the existence of god. Wikipedia's credibility is irrelevant and it has no bearing on the lack of soundness and cogency in your arguments.

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???

1. 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 quoted 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.

2. Just because I have not yet bothered to deal with your emails doesn't mean that they are not illogical or true. Again your reasoning is fundamentally flawed - the logical hole is big enough for me to drive a truck through. Just because something has not been proven false does not imply that it is true - that is a fallacious argument from silence.

[Collin Li]

For those who don't get it:

A logical fallacy is a flaw in the progression of your argument. They are not "beliefs" or opinions, they are logical facts. If you make a claim, and back it up with an argument that has no complete logical progression, then there is really no argument behind the claim.

Brendan is merely pointing out these failures in logic, and he is simply asking for you to try to fill in these gaps of logic, because he's not going to assume what you meant!

[brendan]

have you actually addressed the comments of my fellow church goers???

Firstly, they are material that you provided.
Secondly, how do they even relate to this debate, and how does it even follow from what they say that  therefore a god or gods exists?

[Toothpaste]

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

=)

[ninwa]

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

=)

ahahaha. Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster > Church of Google

[cara.mel]

"How can you worship a search engine over Jesus Christ/Allah/Zeus/Spaghetti Monster/Whatever? It's just a computer program!"

They have heard your point before

I have only known of googlism for 20 minutes, and I believe it more than the spagetti monster. I've often referred to google in the past as a god, and now I can see many many more people share my views =D

[ninwa]

 

BLASPHEMER!!!!!

*hugs flying spaghetti monster*

[Kopite]

Here's his reply Coblin.

-I am somewhat familiar with quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. While we must assign probability to prediction when observing events at the atomic (not microscopic) level, one must keep in mind that we are still able to make those predictions. In other words, we can predict an electron could be in various location, and even assign probability to each of those location, but there are still limits upon the election which prevent it from arriving at certain location or performing certain events. This is why elections stay in orbit around atoms in close proximity to them and don't just drift off into space or half-way across the world or why they don't spontaneously turn to anti-matter.

All material objects in our universe are compose of particles which move around, according to the uncertainty principle, randomly, yet we are still able to predict the events of billions and billions random events combined, making it possible to create a light bulb or diesel engine. It is kind of a paradox; how can such order result from randomness? I argue it is because of the limits which exist on the randomness.

I want to focus on this particular statement:
"Creating mathematical models is not a wonder of God, it arises merely from how humans have observed the world, and have organised how events usually tend to happen."

This is rather circular thinking. Mathematical models are a part of how we observe the world, but doesn't arise from that. There really is no logical explanation an atheist can give as to why humans can assign rather simple mathematical equations to our universe. Why are thing measurable, predicable, understandable...

While it might not prove God, it sure does make perfect sense if there was a intelligent creator behind our existence.

[brendan]

While it might not prove God

No it doesn't prove the existence of god and you want to know why? Because it is not a valid argument for the existence of a god or many gods.

This is rather circular thinking.

While it might not prove God, it sure does make perfect sense if there was a intelligent creator behind our existence.

How ironic. The logic behind the second statement was - you guessed it - circular.

[Mao]

wow!!! *dazzled by google's beauty*...
LMFAO!
u should try blackle
it is a bit more benevolent than google in terms of good for society xD

[Collin Li]

Kopite, please ask your leader for the logic that explains why an atheist cannot believe in mathematical models. Also, thank him for his patronising, yet irrelevant discussion of quantum physics. I was just merely pointing out his misapplication of Einstein's quote: "God does not play dice," and also explaining that quantum physics does rest on the fact that there is randomness at the microscopic scale.

As long as humans acknowledge that mathematical models come from nothing but empirical evidence, there is nothing wrong with applying a statistical model to it. When you start to make causal links without evidence, then we start to require some fundamental assumptions, but if we just make models that explain particular physical phenomena without an explanation, there is no problem for the atheist.

To believe in a model does not require the belief in god. When we make up concepts such as "force," "work," and so on, these are falsifiable assumptions made by the scientist for some certain model. Since these assumptions are falsifiable, unlike the proposition of the existence of a god, this is what separates the "belief in a scientific model" from "belief in a god." I don't understand why your leader believes that it is contradictory to believe in scientific models without believing in a god.

[brendan]

With that article, I never said it proved that God existed.

Then why did you post it in a thread with the topic: "Do you believe in god?" 

have you actually addressed the comments of my fellow church goers???

They are material that you provided, so how do they even relate to this debate? and how does it even follow from what they say that  therefore a god or gods exists?

[sheepz]

im quite confused wid the arguments lol >.< but i do believe in God!

mainly coz i think that the world, atom, human body etc is too complicated to exist by itself so there must be sum kind of creator behind it... n also without a God, human life seems very futile... if sum1 explains to me wat has happened in the last 24 pages i might b able to bring out sum arguments lol... too lz to read so much stuff that has complicated science language >.<

[Mao]

sheepz, here's a summary:

<start infinite loop here>
a: does god exist?
b: yes he does.
c: that argument dont make sense
b: c, you dont make sense
c: b, please explain your arguments then
b: god exist just because!
c: that is complete nonsense
*screaming, burning, killing, pwning*
a: guys, calm down, lets be rational
c: i have every right to destroy arguments
b: that's not fair
a: lets stay on topic
<loop back to beginning>

lol haha!

[brendan]

i do believe in God!

mainly coz i think that the world, atom, human body etc is too complicated to exist by itself so there must be sum kind of creator behind it

Just because a scientific theory cannot currently be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for a phenomena does not necessitate that therefore the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of one god or many gods. It would be a grave mistake in logic to ever make such an argument.