Do you belive in God?

[Distruzio]

You assert that the "whole thing is nonsense" on the premise that in few cases two people fail to maintain the same opinion on the "exact nature of what they believe." In other words, you expect all religiously oriented to parrot out the same tired mantra in the same way or else they fail to legitimately express their religion.

I think it's fair to say that if people want to have a discussion about whether or not God exists, then first the God-believers will need to provide a definition of "God." If y'all can't even agree on that, then why should anybody waste time on such a meaningless discussion?

We can and do.

[Avenio]

We can and do.

Pretty sure the Muslims, Jews, Ba'haists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, some Hindus, and innumerable other monotheist groups (the majority), disagree with that particular claim.

[Dyakovo]

Probably not.

Don't be silly, of course He does. He loves you and believes in you, but is disappointed. He wants you to stop wearing immodest clothing, stop acting immorally around those of the opposite sex, stop listening to vapid TV shows and music that feed you nothing but lies. Come toon Jesus, Deus.

Fixed.
*nods*

[Dyakovo]

Why?

Because he (or she) has read the Bible and knows it to be true. What did you think?

Then he "knows" incorrectly, since the bible is false.
Worldwide Flood? Never happened.
World Created in 7 days? Nope, sorry false again.
Bats are birds? Nope, they're mammals.

Shall I continue?

[Dyakovo]

I think it's fair to say that if people want to have a discussion about whether or not God exists, then first the God-believers will need to provide a definition of "God." If y'all can't even agree on that, then why should anybody waste time on such a meaningless discussion?

We can and do.

That's not a definition of "God". That is a profession of faith.
Try again.

[Smuggar]

Because he (or she) has read the Bible and knows it to be true. What did you think?

Then he "knows" incorrectly, since the bible is false.
Worldwide Flood? Never happened.
World Created in 7 days? Nope, sorry false again.
Bats are birds? Nope, they're mammals.

Shall I continue?

No need to, since you're wrong.

The worldwide flood DID happen.
The world WAS created in seven days.
Bat are mammals, that was a mistranslation.

[The Nuclear Fist]

The worldwide flood DID happen.

^{[citation needed]}

The world WAS created in seven days.

^{[citation needed]}

Bat are mammals, that was a mistranslation.

^{[citation needed]}

[Dyakovo]

Then he "knows" incorrectly, since the bible is false.
Worldwide Flood? Never happened.
World Created in 7 days? Nope, sorry false again.
Bats are birds? Nope, they're mammals.

Shall I continue?

No need to, since you're wrong.¹

The worldwide flood DID happen.²
The world WAS created in seven days.³
Bat are mammals, that was a mistranslation.⁴

1: Except I'm not.
2: No it didn't
3: Wrong again.
4: Even if that is the case, its not like there's any shortage of other errors...
Do some insects have 4 feet? Nope. Insects are hexapods.
Do rabbits chew their cud. Nope, wrong again.
Are whales fish? Nope, they're mammals.
Is the Earth older than the sun? Nope, the sun is considerably older.

[Dyakovo]

Bat are mammals, that was a mistranslation.

^{[citation needed]}

Actually, I just did some checking, and that does appear to be the case...

Leviticus 11:13-19 appears to say that bats are a type of bird, when modern science knows them to be a type of mammal:

And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the falcon of any kind, every raven of any kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. (ESV)
This would appear to be just a translation issue. Since the ancient Hebrew word ('owph) apparently included bats, "birds" is not really an accurate translation. The ESV gives "things that fly" as a suggested alternate translation.

[Distruzio]

We can and do.

Pretty sure the Muslims, Jews, Ba'haists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, some Hindus, and innumerable other monotheist groups (the majority), disagree with that particular claim.

They have their own creeds. Why should our creed apply to them, or any who disagree?

[Distruzio]

We can and do.

That's not a definition of "God". That is a profession of faith.
Try again.

Actually, it is a theological affirmation of the definition of God and a profession of faith, Dy.

[Zarkanians]

@Tim-opolis: It boils down to the old unmoved mover argument, plus that the universe is fine-tuned and very, very surprisingly well disposed towards life. I think it's more rational, in light of what we know and can see around us, to suppose that this is made, by something that knows what it's doing.

I'm not talking about that tribal spirit obsessed with foreskins in the Bible

There's over a million planets for every one capable of supporting life as we know it, and you're claiming that it's well-disposed to life? We're not a deliberate design, we're an accident. And that's if there is some god up in the sky.

If I ever decide to believe in a religion, I'm going with the Norse. At least they had a semi-rational explanation for the creation of the universe, even if it did involve a skull and blood. They didn't just think about it and watch it appear, because even if you look at the evidence supporting psy powers (contested as it is) and believe in it, Gods like that <I>still</I> make no sense to me.

[Odd Future Wolf Gang KTA]

Nope, I'm actually pretty anti-religion but respecting the OP I won't go into any Religion-bashing

[Bottle]

I think it's fair to say that if people want to have a discussion about whether or not God exists, then first the God-believers will need to provide a definition of "God." If y'all can't even agree on that, then why should anybody waste time on such a meaningless discussion?

We can and do.

You do realize that even CHRISTIANS don't all agree on that, right?

[Sociobiology]

not what I wanted a citation on, though I thank you for that anyway. What I'm looking for is a source that shows something in violation of our local rules please.

Our ability to even observe the edges of the universe that go beyond where they should.
So...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_cosmos

To confirm that dark energy is, in fact, a presumption, and not a fact...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy...

The rest is my own theory, not an observation but a way to explain it.

not a theory , a hypothesis at best.

[Bottle]

Pretty sure the Muslims, Jews, Ba'haists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, some Hindus, and innumerable other monotheist groups (the majority), disagree with that particular claim.

They have their own creeds. Why should our creed apply to them, or any who disagree?

Who the fuck cares about "creed"? I was talking about a definition of a term ("God").

This is like, for instance, how my creed is different from other people's creeds on the subject of abortion...but that doesn't stop us from defining the term "abortion." We can have a definition of what a thing is, even if our opinions about its merits differ.

[Galloism]

Who the fuck cares about "creed"? I was talking about a definition of a term ("God").

This is like, for instance, how my creed is different from other people's creeds on the subject of abortion...but that doesn't stop us from defining the term "abortion." We can have a definition of what a thing is, even if our opinions about its merits differ.

/shrug

Many people define me in different ways.

Some think I'm an asshole. Some think I'm a funny guy. Some think I'm wonderful. Some think I'm quiet. Others think I'm loud and annoying. Some think I'm smart. Some wonder if I possess a brain at all.

Truth is, it is hard to define an individual in any kind of quantifiable manner.

[Sociobiology]

I asked for a scientific reason why "God" is a better explanation than science and all I got was this crummy multiverse.

*sigh*

You know...

I said "speculative and incomplete" for a reason too.

Because it is speculative and incomplete.

Just like every damn other piece of evidence, theory and what-the-crap else you can bring before me.

Go on, argue a theory, and I will shoot it down.

theory of evolution via natural selection
Theory of plate tectonics

[Bottle]

Who the fuck cares about "creed"? I was talking about a definition of a term ("God").

This is like, for instance, how my creed is different from other people's creeds on the subject of abortion...but that doesn't stop us from defining the term "abortion." We can have a definition of what a thing is, even if our opinions about its merits differ.

/shrug

Many people define me in different ways.

Some think I'm an asshole. Some think I'm a funny guy. Some think I'm wonderful. Some think I'm quiet. Others think I'm loud and annoying. Some think I'm smart. Some wonder if I possess a brain at all.

Truth is, it is hard to define an individual in any kind of quantifiable manner.

I don't see how it would be hard to define an individual at all. Simply lay out your criteria, and measure.

The fact that some people may LIKE your qualities to different degrees does not change the fact that you HAVE those qualities.

For instance:

Some people find fair hair attractive, and therefore might like my hair. Other people do not find fair hair attractive, and therefore might find my hair unappealing. But neither of these will change the actual shade of my hair.

Some people might find me loud and obnoxious, because compared to them I am. Other people might find me sedate and shy (quit fucking laughing, it could happen). These people might see the exact same behavior from me and react to it very differently. But the behavior was the same.

Etc.

[Galloism]

/shrug

Many people define me in different ways.

Some think I'm an asshole. Some think I'm a funny guy. Some think I'm wonderful. Some think I'm quiet. Others think I'm loud and annoying. Some think I'm smart. Some wonder if I possess a brain at all.

Truth is, it is hard to define an individual in any kind of quantifiable manner.

I don't see how it would be hard to define an individual at all. Simply lay out your criteria, and measure.

The fact that some people may LIKE your qualities to different degrees does not change the fact that you HAVE those qualities.

For instance:

Some people find fair hair attractive, and therefore might like my hair. Other people do not find fair hair attractive, and therefore might find my hair unappealing. But neither of these will change the actual shade of my hair.

Some people might find me loud and obnoxious, because compared to them I am. Other people might find me sedate and shy (quit fucking laughing, it could happen). These people might see the exact same behavior from me and react to it very differently. But the behavior was the same.

Etc.

Not quite that easy. One must also consider the individual circumstances of the person in question. One cannot simply define an individual because an individual defies quick definition, aside to say "That's Mike. He's... well, Mike."

There's no way to completely define Mike, as Mike has many many nuances. Sure, you can say that he's 6' 2" and has blonde hair, but you cannot say whether he is nice or not, because that could depend greatly on how you treat him, the circumstance, whether he woke up on the wrong side of bed, etc. You cannot define if he's intelligent or not, because no one can agree on a good definition of intelligence. When you cannot agree on a method of measurement, you cannot agree on a definition.

[Sociobiology]

Not only are you 'explaining it badly', but you're talking nonsense. If there was convincing evidence of the supernatural having 'an effect on our world', it would be 'the natural'.

Not entirely, and there is such evidence. There's a reason the observable modifier is used when describing, well, any theory in physics.

Now, as to why not entirely, if it's a thing in violation of our local rules, it's not natural even when it's interacting with us.

just stop, If something can be shown to violate the laws of physics then we change the laws, said law has be shown to incorrectly predict the universe, that is what observing something that violates the law does.
If conservation of energy is shown to be wrong then it is wrong, so far it has not been shown to be wrong even though it has been test literally billions of times, so we can safely treat the chances as zero, but you must remember the change is of them being wrong is never zero.

God, has not been observed or demonstrated, so invoking it makes it supernatural, it is also unscientific to do so.

[Bottle]

I don't see how it would be hard to define an individual at all. Simply lay out your criteria, and measure.

The fact that some people may LIKE your qualities to different degrees does not change the fact that you HAVE those qualities.

For instance:

Some people find fair hair attractive, and therefore might like my hair. Other people do not find fair hair attractive, and therefore might find my hair unappealing. But neither of these will change the actual shade of my hair.

Some people might find me loud and obnoxious, because compared to them I am. Other people might find me sedate and shy (quit fucking laughing, it could happen). These people might see the exact same behavior from me and react to it very differently. But the behavior was the same.

Etc.

Not quite that easy. One must also consider the individual circumstances of the person in question. One cannot simply define an individual because an individual defies quick definition, aside to say "That's Mike. He's... well, Mike."

There's no way to completely define Mike, as Mike has many many nuances. Sure, you can say that he's 6' 2" and has blonde hair, but you cannot say whether he is nice or not, because that could depend greatly on how you treat him, the circumstance, whether he woke up on the wrong side of bed, etc. You cannot define if he's intelligent or not, because no one can agree on a good definition of intelligence. When you cannot agree on a method of measurement, you cannot agree on a definition.

I don't see why you can't measure and define all those qualities. Sure, it's going to take a ton of variables, but it really doesn't seem impossible at all.

[Galloism]

Not quite that easy. One must also consider the individual circumstances of the person in question. One cannot simply define an individual because an individual defies quick definition, aside to say "That's Mike. He's... well, Mike."

There's no way to completely define Mike, as Mike has many many nuances. Sure, you can say that he's 6' 2" and has blonde hair, but you cannot say whether he is nice or not, because that could depend greatly on how you treat him, the circumstance, whether he woke up on the wrong side of bed, etc. You cannot define if he's intelligent or not, because no one can agree on a good definition of intelligence. When you cannot agree on a method of measurement, you cannot agree on a definition.

I don't see why you can't measure and define all those qualities. Sure, it's going to take a ton of variables, but it really doesn't seem impossible at all.

Impossible is a big word. I don't generally use it.

However, to define "God", one would first have to agree on a method of measurement, and we can't even do that with individual humans we can see. I don't see how we could have the Starship Enterprise without having the Apollo rockets first.

[Bottle]

I don't see how it would be hard to define an individual at all. Simply lay out your criteria, and measure.

The fact that some people may LIKE your qualities to different degrees does not change the fact that you HAVE those qualities.

For instance:

Some people find fair hair attractive, and therefore might like my hair. Other people do not find fair hair attractive, and therefore might find my hair unappealing. But neither of these will change the actual shade of my hair.

Some people might find me loud and obnoxious, because compared to them I am. Other people might find me sedate and shy (quit fucking laughing, it could happen). These people might see the exact same behavior from me and react to it very differently. But the behavior was the same.

Etc.

Not quite that easy. One must also consider the individual circumstances of the person in question. One cannot simply define an individual because an individual defies quick definition, aside to say "That's Mike. He's... well, Mike."

There's no way to completely define Mike, as Mike has many many nuances. Sure, you can say that he's 6' 2" and has blonde hair, but you cannot say whether he is nice or not, because that could depend greatly on how you treat him, the circumstance, whether he woke up on the wrong side of bed, etc. You cannot define if he's intelligent or not, because no one can agree on a good definition of intelligence. When you cannot agree on a method of measurement, you cannot agree on a definition.

I don't see why you can't measure and define all those qualities. Sure, it's going to take a ton of variables, but it really doesn't seem impossible at all.

EDIT: But, more relevantly, we're not even up to that point with "God." See, with Mike, we can at least start with the basics: Mike is a human individual, which means he has some basic properties like having mass and being carbon-based and shit. Mike may have a fuckton of other individual qualities, and we could probably spend a lifetime defining Mike down in smaller and smaller detail until we mapped him at the genetic level and described the positions of individual molecules on his cells, but fundamentally we can define "what" Mike is and establish that he exists.

That's what we're asking for with God. You don't have to define every tiny detail of God, just fucking agree on, say, if God is a physical being or not. Agree on whether God is a conscious entity of some kind or not. Agree on whether God is a NOUN or not.

That's the level we're asking from theists. Can't manage that? Then your concept is worthless, irrelevant, and pointless to discuss.

[Manleestan]

God is a maximally great being that created the universe and designed it.

As far as things that help prove the existence of God, well, I'm glad people asked for this:

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Ontological Argument

The second one is a bit heavier so I won't link to too many resources here, but a couple should be enough to give the Atheists something to scratch their heads with. I like to hear from the more philosophically inclined atheists, they are more fun and generally smarter.

And frankly, the arguments I've seen from the nontheist side of the house are just so much weaker, it's hard to accept them as true. It would help if their great intellectual minds stayed in their lane, I think Dawkins and the Rational Response Squad are examples of this.

I don't really enjoy watching scenes like this anymore, because the non-religious simply can't get past the "science proves everything rhetoric 98 percent of the time, and it's sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco