Quoted:

I hesitate to even make this post because I am sure that I will once again be called a troll for having a different opinion...

Quoted:


Please show where you have been called a troll here for having a different opinion.

Quoted:
Is it not possible to begin with one viewpoint, shift a belief and end up neutral, do some honest research and end up elsewhere or back where we began?
Don

... That, and a man who argues a position he does not believe (unless it's assigned in a class or job of some sort) is really not worth the trouble. You are a troll, pure and simple...

Quoted:



... I only challenge the statements here for my amusement. Sometimes I don't even believe my post but I wanted to hear the rebuttal for the opposing argument...

Quoted:

... I only challenge the statements here for my amusement. Sometimes I don't even believe my post but I wanted to hear the rebuttal for the opposing argument...

Quoted:
the problem is you invent God to explain what created the universe and let God exist without a  creator.

If God doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe.

/shrug

Quoted:











God, unlike the universe,  is outside of space, time, and matter. He isn't subject to its laws.

Quoted:


I can say the same thing about Santa Claus or Ameratsu, that doesn't mean I'm correct.  A metaphysical naturalist would answer that nothing exists outside the natural world.   I can play philosophy 101 games all day, but.....

Trying to prove the existence or non-existence of God is a fool's errand.   You can explain why you believe or don't believe (useful in apologetics) but you can't prove anything.


 

Quoted:

ETA: And you're right, simply saying that does not make me correct. But I'm pretty sure I am.

Quoted:



Various philosophers have proven that you can't even prove that YOU exist... so... if, by "prove," you mean, know beyond a shadow a doubt, with perfect certainty?  No, you cannot know ANYTHING with that degree of totality. Faith fills the gaps.  Men act on faith all the time, but it's only a dirty word when applied to God.



 

Quoted:


well hell, so do I hehe



 

Quoted:
I hesitate to even make this post because I am sure that I will once again be called a troll for having a different opinion.  However, I think that this will help clarify where I, and people who share my belief system, are coming from.

First of all, ALL of us in this forum started out searching for answers somewhere along the way.  The questions may have been different and the need to ask them may have been different but there IS a reason that you believe what you believe today regardless of what it is that you believe.  We seem to have two primary groups that participate in this discussion and one group is obviously the majority so I will discuss them first.  

The christian belief system has its foundation in the bible and faith in god as its principle.  Across christianity, there are many different ways that people believe.  Some people are creationists and read the bible literally.  Some people choose to read the bible and use the stories as metaphors to guide them through their lives.  This group typically leaves room for what science holds as fact, and their are plenty levels in between.  Regardless, you infer that there are things that you can not understand and you have faith in your creator.  Your assumption is that there is a god.  If you feel like I have misrepresented your side then please don't hesitate to correct me because faith is personal and this is a discussion where people can learn from one another.    

The agnostic or atheist is obviously different.  The MOST important difference is the initial assumption.  We begin with the assumption that god does not exist and start to reason through our world to figure out why things are the way they are.  Many of us started as christians and our search started out, not as journey to disprove god, but rather to explain things in history and in the world that the bible did not explain (at least to our satisfaction).  What eventually happens is that the concept of god becomes unreasonable to us.  What we say about god, at least most of us, is that you can not REASON that god exists.  If evidence arises that makes it reasonable then you will have plenty of converts.  However, to us, the burden of proof lies with the individual(s) making the claim.  If anyone feels like I have misrepresented your thoughts please chime in and explain it in your own words.

So, when we all start off with two different sets of assumptions and one side argues their faith while the other side argues reason, we won't be coming to any conclusions with one another.  This does not mean that the conversation should not be had.  We will either agree to disagree and be enlightened by getting to better understand the psyche of the other side or it is possible that someone who has questions will get them asnwered by one side or the other.   Enjoy your discussions.  I look forward to learning from you but I WILL challenge you in order to do so.  It is the nature of reason.

Quoted:
I will play then. This is an argument for the existence of God. Not any one religion or another specifically.

First, to clarify, we will say that God=that than which a greater cannot be thought.

In this universe, if something exists, there must also exist what it takes for that to exist.

The universe, the collection of beings in space and time, exists.

Something must exist that causes the existence of the universe.

However, that cannot be in the universe, because nothing in space, matter, and time can cause itself to exist. Something outside has to exist for it to exist too.

Whatever causes the universe to exist must be outside space, time, and matter.

If it is outside of space, time, and matter, it isn't subject to the laws of space, time, and matter.

It can exist without a cause.

We call him God.

Quoted:


http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m164/chevylfan/arrogance_122.jpg

Quoted:


I actually like this argument.....but...

you said IN this universe, if something exists, there must also exist what it takes for that to exist.  For every cause there is an effect.  I get it.  I even AGREE that everything physical has a cause.  

You say god is beyond space, time and matter.  So is the universe.  The universe is all encompassing and infinite thus being beyond space, time and matter.

The flaw that I see is that if you can assume that god is the uncaused cause you can assume that the universe is the uncaused cause just as easily.

What say you

Quoted:


I'm not accomodating a viewpoint (God-fearing or otherwise) with that statement.  When you drive down the street, you act on faith that your mechanic put the wheels back on correctly (otherwise, there is no way you would drive down the street at 70mph).  When soldiers go to war, they act on faith in the intelligence, the weapons systems and the men and women beside them.  None of them know for certain if the intelligence is good or the weapons systems will work as advertised or if the man next to them will freeze.  We act on faith - otherwise we'd be so paralyzed with fear of the unknown that we could not do a damn thing.

A man cannot act on lack of faith.  If a man does not have faith, then he MUST have 100% certain information to act.  Since no one can know anything for 100% certain, they would either not act or they will develop faith.

Quoted:



Where is there arrogance in his statement ???

Quoted:

I was gonna put up the not this shit again, or facepalm  pic but its kind of overused.


So IBTFPP (in before the facepalm pic)

Anyway, where is the eveidence that there is something that lives outside of the laws of space, time, and matter ?

So once more I have to plagerize George Carlin: If this is the best that an all knowing, all seeing, omnipotent being can come up with, that is some sorry shit & he is definately not deserving of my worship.

Quoted:


Where is there arrogance in his statement ???

Quoted:


The fact that space, time, and matter exist and  are in space time and matter. Where's the cause?

Quoted:

Meh....

I don't see it that way....He is basically using the scientific method & coming to a conclusion based on that method (for lack of a better term)

I think he was trying to reasonably explain why is is that most of us atheists & agnostics have gotten to the (thought process) where we are now.

I think it may sound like arrogance, because it challenges your firmly held beliefs. I really didn't read it in there.

Quoted:


Ok....If you are saying god is outside of space/time/matter....then that means he had to have created space/time & matter which would be contigent on the existence of a god..

so then god would have to be contingent on space/time/matter & therefore they are mutually contingent

so he cant have created space/time/matter & live outside of space/time/matter.

Quoted:


We will just have to agree to disagree.  




I have not "ridiculed" anyone or anything.

Another spurious comment, very much like your opening statement of this thread (for which I am still awaiting a specific example, BTW).

Quoted:


If God is that than which a greater cannot be thought, then that guy isn't God. The God you mentioned is limited by space time and matter if he cannot live both inside and outside it. If anyone can think of a "greater" then he isn't God. I can think of a God who is not bound by space time and matter at all and can coexist both in and out of s/t/m by the fact that he is God and nothing is greater. He isn't limited by anything, certainly not his own creation.

Quoted:


So basically what you have just said is that no matter what, your god can do whatever you imagine he can do.....

This reminds me of the old, "god can not lie because he is the truth"

& people wonder why we become atheists ?

Quoted:


No, that isn't true. God can do whatever he wants to do because he is a real being. I was saying that the "god" you mentioned in your post isn't God because he has a limit. The definition of  God is that nothing is greater. A God with no limits is greater than a God who has limits. So one of those two is God and the other isn't.

Quoted:



How is referring to me as arrogant and self serving not ridicule? I provided the quotes. If you would like to look them up it shouldn't be hard seeing as how you can see when and where I post.

Quoted:



Ever heard of Epicurus ?

He had a thought on the matter......it was something like this:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither willing, nor able? Then why call him God?

Again if this is the best a god can come up with, why call him god ?

You might also want to look up Russell's teapot argument.

I think it explains why people still think the way they do.

Quoted:
I've been on both sides of this issue. I cannot prove God exists no more than you can prove He doesn't. How can you reason you can find evidence of an all powerful God who wants you to believe "by faith"? What you're telling us is the only God you will accept is one you think you can prove to be.
Don

Quoted:


I have heard that before and there is a fundamental flaw. He is perfectly able to prevent evil, but that would eliminate free will which would not be love. It is far more loving for him to do what he is doing and allow us to have freedom than to enslave us and force us to love him. The second point in that argument you posted is erroneous, as it would be malevolent for him to force us to obey.

Anyway, what does that have to do with his existence?

Quoted:



Why would a perfect being create a flawed creature ? & since god created everything, did he not then create the devil, bielzibub, hades & all that crap too ?? Why would he create that which seeks to destroy him & all he has created ? It makes no sense.

Quoted:


Yes, and he was also making the implication that his conclusion was the only reasonable one.  Except that in his zeal to provide justification for his position, he forgot one the most important tenets of the scientific method: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  He hasn't "proven" anything other than his limited knowledge.



There are two reasons why this doesn't apply to me. First, my beliefs aren't challenged (in the sense that I now have doubt) because someone on the interent says God can't be proven.  Second, I do not have the same opinion of others who have come to the same conclusion for the same reasons as he.

Quoted:


I did not deny that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  It is simply not relative to my position.  My point is that you can not reason gods existence.  Absence of evidence has no affect on the argument.  I am open to other possiblities given new evidence.  Are you?  I hope I wasn't overzealous in my response.

Quoted:


The presumption that belief in God (or any other higher authority) is the result of a lack of rational reasoning powers (or their usage, to be more accurate).  The implication that had those with faith exercised a bit of logical thought, they would come to the same conclusion he has.

Oh, to be sure, he doesn't say it in those words, but the underlying accusation is quite prevalent in his posts, here and elsewhere.

Edited for formatting

Quoted:


Crap, I forgot to post a definition of the universe to go along with the God clarification.

Going by numerous definitions from dictionaries, I would combine them into saying that the universe is the totality of known or supposed objects throughout space, time, and matter.

Quoted:


I said this thread was arrogant and self-serving, not you personally.

My personal reading of your original post is that this thread is (1) someone who has been a member of this site for less than a year [and active in this particular forum far less than that] presuming to start a thread to tell us all how we should carry on discussions in this forum, and defining the terms for such discussions [arrogant, IMO], and/or (2) a transparent pre-emptive defense effort in case you were called on the trollish posts elsewhere in the forum [self-serving, IMO]. Neither of these observations fit the definition of the word "ridicule," nor do any of my comments here. (I am not one to ridicule others, especially here.)

It is possible that I am completely misreading you in one or both respects –– if so, time will certainly bear that out.


And FWIW I believe I have read your every post and every response to such –– I do not see a single example of you being accused of trolling based upon what you do or do not believe (as you asserted in the first line of this thread), only examples where such is based upon your manner of posting and/or self-admissions of playing "devil's advocate" extensively here.

Quoted:


Its a good point...

you can't prove a negative

Quoted:


so if god created everything tangible before it was tangible then god is intangible.  how is god omnipresent if god is intangible?

Quoted:


Because God is greater than everything and isn't limited by his own creation. To say that he is denies the definition of God (greatest), making him not God. The real God isn't limited by s/t/m because the boundary between being outside of it and inside of it doesn't have any effect on God, otherwise it would be greater than God.

Quoted:


You have claimed there is no God... proceed to prove that claim.  And, yes, you can prove a negative or you can provide another suggestion for the origin of existence (The Big Bang is not an origin of existence - it is a mechanism, not a cause).