Does God Exist?

[Stormwind-City]

I can equally claim that the existence of the universe is proof there is no god(s). Checkmate

if you believe in the law of cause and effect, then you should believe in a creator.

No, the Laws of physics don't apply when reality does not exist.

[Godular]

Well, maybe. I for one can't really say if a deity does or does not exist. Even if one were to exist, how would we tell?

How do you tell if G-d exists? Well I mean all of matter is a testament to G-d's existence. Look at the fine tuning within the Universe. See the Beauty of the stars, the Sun, and even Earth itself. G-d's there and G-d is great

Claiming that some cosmic space monkey made the universe detracts from the glory of the whole thing.

[Vekalse]

if you believe in the law of cause and effect, then you should believe in a creator.

The Cosmological Argument is bullshit. Don't even try.

To be equally fair, you explaining Atheism can have the same reaction. (Atheism is bullshit. Don't even try.[See?])

At least let him explain.

[Mavorpen]

if you believe in the law of cause and effect, then you should believe in a creator.

This argument has been proven to be bullshit more than 200 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Also, nothing implies that the cause-effect relationship is a physical necessity and not just an a posteriori category of our perception or of our mind.

Actually it's the Cosmological Argument he's trying to use. The Ontological argument is something different.

[Eastern Equestria]

And I'm quite certain that I myself am, in fact, God.

I see what you're doing, and it's not, in fact, working.

I believe that it is. Everyone's beliefs count, after all.

[Greater Istanistan]

God's in His heaven, all's right with the world.

Srsly, though, references aside I seriously believe that even if God did exist (and this is extra true should it exist), then God would be merely a personal reflection of what the believer wants God to be. God and the doctrine surrounding God are entirely personal matters and shaped by personal biases. There is no one theological truth - instead, there is a different truth for everyone who worships simply because everyone is different.

That being said, I am under no circumstances a believer in an Abrahamic God. Or any, really.

[Risottia]

Strong anthropic principle detected.

Also: See the utmost horror of black holes. See Ebola, smallpox, and the Black Death.

What's wrong with black holes? Nothing more horrible about them than any other celestial mass.

Hey, if he can claim that huge nuclear reactors who now and then explode destroying everything in the vicinity are beautiful, I can claim that bodies so dense that the escape velocity is higher than c are horrible.

[Mavorpen]

The Cosmological Argument is bullshit. Don't even try.

To be equally fair, you explaining Atheism can have the same reaction. (Atheism is bullshit. Don't even try.[See?])

At least let him explain.

No. Because I'm fucking sick and tired of that argument that's been destroyed over and over.

[Stormwind-City]

This argument has been proven to be bullshit more than 200 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Also, nothing implies that the cause-effect relationship is a physical necessity and not just an a posteriori category of our perception or of our mind.

Actually it's the Cosmological Argument he's trying to use. The Ontological argument is something different.

Cosmological is still disproven though.

[The Orson Empire]

Then what is it?

If you didn't want me to make this assumption, then maybe you should have added that to your post instead of accusing me of strawmanning.

It's what it says, instantly stop believing in something. I don't stop believing in chunks or in a piecemeal way.

Why would I do that when you asked me a yes or no question?

Then you shouldn't have accused me of strawmanning, when all you said was "no" and somehow expected me to interpret that as "skeptical".

[Vazdaria]

Yea, it really is.

Proof or BS.

The belief that it was just simply preeminently "there" is just as logical as the belief that God has always existed and that nothing could come before it. It was just there and has always been there.

SOOOOO, If you believe in the concept of law and effect then its totally plausible to believe in a creator.

[Mavorpen]

It's what it says, instantly stop believing in something. I don't stop believing in chunks or in a piecemeal way.

Why would I do that when you asked me a yes or no question?

Then you shouldn't have accused me of strawmanning, when all you said was "no" and somehow expected me to interpret that as "skeptical".

I don't care. A strawman is a strawman.

[Mavorpen]

The belief that it was just simply preeminently "there" is just as logical as the belief that God has always existed and that nothing could come before it.

No, it isn't. One assumes the existence of something that has no evidence, the other makes no such assumption.

[Vazdaria]

How do you tell if G-d exists? Well I mean all of matter is a testament to G-d's existence. Look at the fine tuning within the Universe. See the Beauty of the stars, the Sun, and even Earth itself. G-d's there and G-d is great

Claiming that some cosmic space monkey made the universe detracts from the glory of the whole thing.

Space Monkey?

G-d doesn't have a body.

[Stormwind-City]

Proof or BS.

The belief that it was just simply preeminently "there" is just as logical as the belief that God has always existed and that nothing could come before it. It was just there and has always been there.

SOOOOO, If you believe in the concept of law and effect then its totally plausible to believe in a creator.

The laws of physics didn't exist without a universe and still don't work in mathematical equations for the young universe.

[Godular]

Claiming that some cosmic space monkey made the universe detracts from the glory of the whole thing.

Space Monkey?

G-d doesn't have a body.

Oh really? You have evidence?

[Inzijard]

What's wrong with black holes? Nothing more horrible about them than any other celestial mass.

Hey, if he can claim that huge nuclear reactors who now and then explode destroying everything in the vicinity are beautiful, I can claim that bodies so dense that the escape velocity is higher than c are horrible.

Well, good thing nuclear reactors can't explode.

[Othelos]

Claiming that some cosmic space monkey made the universe detracts from the glory of the whole thing.

Space Monkey?

G-d doesn't have a body.

totally correct.

And the bible says not to use god's name in vain. So it's okay to type out 'god'.

[Risottia]

This argument has been proven to be bullshit more than 200 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Also, nothing implies that the cause-effect relationship is a physical necessity and not just an a posteriori category of our perception or of our mind.

Actually it's the Cosmological Argument he's trying to use. The Ontological argument is something different.

Not that much. The cosmological argument is a variant of the ontological one, iirc. Basically, it goes back to the "nothing cometh from nothing" of Parmenides - which has existance is a prerequisite. Hence it's ontological.

[Othelos]

Space Monkey?

G-d doesn't have a body.

Oh really? You have evidence?

"the bible"

[Vekalse]

Space Monkey?

G-d doesn't have a body.

Oh really? You have evidence?

No. We don't. However, I assume you have solid evidence of the Big Bang. You saw it, I assume?

[Vazdaria]

Space Monkey?

G-d doesn't have a body.

Oh really? You have evidence?

Do you have evidence that G-d has a body? Because if G-d has a body, we should be able to measure it.

I can't measure G-d. You can't measure G-d.

If G-d were to have a body then that places a physical limitation on G-d.

[Risottia]

Hey, if he can claim that huge nuclear reactors who now and then explode destroying everything in the vicinity are beautiful, I can claim that bodies so dense that the escape velocity is higher than c are horrible.

Well, good thing nuclear reactors can't explode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

And what is a star but a natural nuclear reactor?

[Risottia]

I can't measure G-d. You can't measure G-d.

Hence it is not real.

[Vazdaria]

Space Monkey?

G-d doesn't have a body.

And the bible says not to use god's name in vain. So it's okay to type out 'god'.

Correct. The prohibition against blasphemy applies to G-d's Hebrew names. I still like showing respect to the Creator