Does God Exist?

[Twilight Imperium]

Yeah and that's the thing! Christian apologists use semantics, and fallacious argument to try and prove their position, but they don't rely on science like they should.

It's because Christian apologists are coming at the question backwards. Instead of starting with nothing and figuring out what's around them by observation, they say "God is around us!" and try to make everything else fit that mold.

They're like those fanfic authors who are annoyed with all the inconsistencies in the Harry Potter books, so they bend over backwards to "fill in" the plot holes in a fictional universe. Maybe it's fun, but it'll never be science.

[Ashmoria]

I am the only one around here who finds scientific evidence to be the only definitive evidence that could convince me of god existing?

Logical reasoning is also a lot of fun, but when it comes down to the evidence that matters, that is scientific evidence. People who argue for the existence of god like Ray Comfort, Dinesh D'souza, William Lane Craig and many others don't use science they play semantics games and use fallacious arguments and are dishonest in their reasoning.

Why is it that these people think they are right but they have to lie and use petty tactics to get people on their side. If they are right, why don't they just present the evidence and explain how it points to god?

Scientists do this, atheists do this as well, but apologetics don't.
If they are right, why do they have to be disingenuous to get their point across.

I don't need scientific evidence....but I guess it would have to be spectacular if it violated scientific principles.

....

but then its obvious that the god of the bible is nonsensical and the gods made up to get past the nonsense of the bible are just shit someone made up so its irrelevant to anything.

[Securitan]

I am the only one around here who finds scientific evidence to be the only definitive evidence that could convince me of god existing?

Logical reasoning is also a lot of fun, but when it comes down to the evidence that matters, that is scientific evidence. People who argue for the existence of god like Ray Comfort, Dinesh D'souza, William Lane Craig and many others don't use science they play semantics games and use fallacious arguments and are dishonest in their reasoning.

Why is it that these people think they are right but they have to lie and use petty tactics to get people on their side. If they are right, why don't they just present the evidence and explain how it points to god?

Scientists do this, atheists do this as well, but apologetics don't.
If they are right, why do they have to be disingenuous to get their point across.

I don't need scientific evidence....but I guess it would have to be spectacular if it violated scientific principles.

....

but then its obvious that the god of the bible is nonsensical and the gods made up to get past the nonsense of the bible are just shit someone made up so its irrelevant to anything.

If it violated scientific principles, then it wouldn't be scientific evidence. And yes, you do need evidence to prove something is true. You are completely correct in your second statement.

[Ashmoria]

I don't need scientific evidence....but I guess it would have to be spectacular if it violated scientific principles.

....

but then its obvious that the god of the bible is nonsensical and the gods made up to get past the nonsense of the bible are just shit someone made up so its irrelevant to anything.

If it violated scientific principles, then it wouldn't be scientific evidence. And yes, you do need evidence to prove something is true. You are completely correct in your second statement.

that's why I said I don't need scientific evidence.

[Securitan]

If it violated scientific principles, then it wouldn't be scientific evidence. And yes, you do need evidence to prove something is true. You are completely correct in your second statement.

that's why I said I don't need scientific evidence.

All evidence that is verifiable and reviewable is scientific. And yes, you do need that type of evidence to prove something exists.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

that's why I said I don't need scientific evidence.

All evidence that is verifiable and reviewable is scientific. And yes, you do need that type of evidence to prove something is exists.

He's leaving room open for "logical evidence", like x is a necessary precondition for y.

For instance, I can tell that I exist because I experience existing. It's not conceivable that experience can be experienced without the thing that experiences existing.

Honestly as far as proving that anything exists philosophically that's the end of the line from what I've seen.

[Securitan]

All evidence that is verifiable and reviewable is scientific. And yes, you do need that type of evidence to prove something is exists.

He's leaving room open for "logical evidence", like x is a necessary precondition for y.

For instance, I can tell that I exist because I experience existing. It's not conceivable that experience can be experienced without the thing that experiences existing.

Honestly as far as proving that anything exists philosophically that's the end of the line from what I've seen.

So you mean like the First Cause argument? Still, under certain circumstances, there are ton of things that could serve as a necessary precondition for y. That also assumes that there even is a necessary precondition for y. By the way, your example reminds me of "I think, therefore I am".

EDIT: I know this works in some cases but it just wouldn't seem to make sense when trying to prove a particular deity over another or even the existence of a higher power to begin with.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

He's leaving room open for "logical evidence", like x is a necessary precondition for y.

For instance, I can tell that I exist because I experience existing. It's not conceivable that experience can be experienced without the thing that experiences existing.

Honestly as far as proving that anything exists philosophically that's the end of the line from what I've seen.

So you mean like the First Cause argument? Still, under certain circumstances, there are ton of things that could serve as a necessary precondition for y. That also assumes that there even is a necessary precondition for y. By the way, your example reminds me of "I think, therefore I am".

EDIT: I know this works in some cases but it just wouldn't seem to make sense when trying to prove a particular deity over another or even the existence of a higher power to begin with.

My example is a restatement of "I think therefore I am."

As I mentioned upthread, there's also th presuppositional argument and the moral argument.

[Securitan]

So you mean like the First Cause argument? Still, under certain circumstances, there are ton of things that could serve as a necessary precondition for y. That also assumes that there even is a necessary precondition for y. By the way, your example reminds me of "I think, therefore I am".

EDIT: I know this works in some cases but it just wouldn't seem to make sense when trying to prove a particular deity over another or even the existence of a higher power to begin with.

My example is a restatement of "I think therefore I am."

As I mentioned upthread, there's also th presuppositional argument and the moral argument.

The presuppositional argument doesn't really work since it says atheists presuppose God does not exist when forming refutations - even though they really aren't. Logic, reason, and morality don't come from a deity, so both arguments don't really work.

I can see how they are examples of attempting to use other "evidence" to prove something though.

[New Hampshire Republic]

I believe/hope he exists, but then again, I'm a mortal so I won't definitively know until I'm dead.

[Infected Mushroom]

we don't know.

He might exist.

The Bible could be true.

We should be careful just in case...

[Sun Wukong]

we don't know.

He might exist.

The Bible could be true.

We should be careful just in case...

Which is why I make daily blood-sacrifices to Tezcatlipoca.

Sure, the sun will probably still rise if I don't regularly cut out the still-beating hearts of my enemies before the alter, but why take the chance?

[Securitan]

we don't know.

He might exist.

The Bible could be true.

We should be careful just in case...

Ok. We should believe in Zoroaster, the Avesta might be true. But wait, there are hundreds of gods to believe in, each of them as valid as the one before. Should we believe in all of them? Wait, that won't work, because many religions preach their divine figure(s) as the only true one(s). It's like a celestial game of roulette.

Even if we did land on the right roulette number, what if the god(s) aren't satisfied with you believing in them for the sole purpose of being rewarded? All your efforts would have been in vain.

See what I'm getting at?

[Mavorpen]

we don't know.

He might exist.

The Bible could be true.

We should be careful just in case...

Which is why I make daily blood-sacrifices to Tezcatlipoca.

Sure, the sun will probably still rise if I don't regularly cut out the still-beating hearts of my enemies before the alter, but why take the chance?

He better hope God doesn't like dogs, or else he's screwed.

[The Holy Zirid Caliphate]

Yeah and that's the thing! Christian apologists use semantics, and fallacious argument to try and prove their position, but they don't rely on science like they should.

It's because Christian apologists are coming at the question backwards. Instead of starting with nothing and figuring out what's around them by observation, they say "God is around us!" and try to make everything else fit that mold.

They're like those fanfic authors who are annoyed with all the inconsistencies in the Harry Potter books, so they bend over backwards to "fill in" the plot holes in a fictional universe. Maybe it's fun, but it'll never be science.

While that may be a common approach, particularly by those who are born into a Christian family, however, I think you are failing to examine the whole group. Take examples like J.R.R. Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, Lee Stroble, Francis S. Collins, Allan R. Sandage, and many others who have converted due to their examination of science and philosophy from an either Atheistic or Agnostic standpoint and have come to the conclusion that, while science may explain many things, the sheer improbability of these events happening at once leads to the necessity of a higher being. Upon reaching that conclusion an examination of various philosophies led them to logically conclude that Christianity is the most logical belief system out there and so they converted.

[Securitan]

It's because Christian apologists are coming at the question backwards. Instead of starting with nothing and figuring out what's around them by observation, they say "God is around us!" and try to make everything else fit that mold.

They're like those fanfic authors who are annoyed with all the inconsistencies in the Harry Potter books, so they bend over backwards to "fill in" the plot holes in a fictional universe. Maybe it's fun, but it'll never be science.

While that may be a common approach, particularly by those who are born into a Christian family, however, I think you are failing to examine the whole group. Take examples like J.R.R. Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, Lee Stroble, Francis S. Collins, Allan R. Sandage, and many others who have converted due to their examination of science and philosophy from an either Atheistic or Agnostic standpoint and have come to the conclusion that, while science may explain many things, the sheer improbability of these events happening at once leads to the necessity of a higher being. Upon reaching that conclusion an examination of various philosophies led them to logically conclude that Christianity is the most logical belief system out there and so they converted.

Sources? Also, I think Collins, Tolkien, and Lewis were pretty devout Catholics throughout their entire lives.

[Greater Istanistan]

Tolkien was super Catholic for his whole life.

[The Holy Zirid Caliphate]

Tolkien was super Catholic for his whole life.

Sorry about that, I think I was confusing Lewis' testimony with Tolkein's.

[Sun Wukong]

Tolkien was super Catholic for his whole life.

Like a normal Catholic, but with the ability to leap tall steeples in a single bound.

[Greater Istanistan]

Egads! Martin Luthor's built another doom robot! I'd better find a confessional booth so I can change into my Cassock of Disguise!

Point still stands, though. He was a pretty hardcore traditionalist Catholic.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

The mere fact of their conversion is unconvincing. There are thousands of counter-examples. If they had compelling evidence, it was up tothem to present it.

Even among the more interesting apologetics, I have never seen an even slightly convincing argument for Christianity, specifically.

[The Holy Zirid Caliphate]

While that may be a common approach, particularly by those who are born into a Christian family, however, I think you are failing to examine the whole group. Take examples like J.R.R. Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, Lee Stroble, Francis S. Collins, Allan R. Sandage, and many others who have converted due to their examination of science and philosophy from an either Atheistic or Agnostic standpoint and have come to the conclusion that, while science may explain many things, the sheer improbability of these events happening at once leads to the necessity of a higher being. Upon reaching that conclusion an examination of various philosophies led them to logically conclude that Christianity is the most logical belief system out there and so they converted.

Sources? Also, I think Collins, Tolkien, and Lewis were pretty devout Catholics throughout their entire lives.

I admit I was wrong about Tolkien, as to Collins, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/v ... llins.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins, http://www.salon.com/2006/08/07/collins_6/, as to Lewis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis, http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features ... _nov05.asp, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/ownwords/joy.html

[The Holy Zirid Caliphate]

The mere fact of their conversion is unconvincing. There are thousands of counter-examples. If they had compelling evidence, it was up tothem to present it.

Even among the more interesting apologetics, I have never seen an even slightly convincing argument for Christianity, specifically.

Do you want arguments based on what sets Christianity apart from the other world views or a general proof of God leading to Christianity?

[Highfort]

While that may be a common approach, particularly by those who are born into a Christian family, however, I think you are failing to examine the whole group. Take examples like J.R.R. Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, Lee Stroble, Francis S. Collins, Allan R. Sandage, and many others who have converted due to their examination of science and philosophy from an either Atheistic or Agnostic standpoint and have come to the conclusion that, while science may explain many things, the sheer improbability of these events happening at once leads to the necessity of a higher being. Upon reaching that conclusion an examination of various philosophies led them to logically conclude that Christianity is the most logical belief system out there and so they converted.

So they figured out that the universe needs a first causal agent (rather a heated topic of debate) and decided promptly that therefore this agent cares about them and sacrificed his son barbarically in the Middle East, not to mention ignoring much of the world til long after his son's death.

Forgive me if I'm not impressed by their reasoning, even if Tolkein was an excellent fantasy writer, I loved the Screwtape Letters, and Collins headed the sequencing of the genome.

[Securitan]

So since people have also "converted" to atheism, it means we're right? What about people who convert to Islam? Are they right because they think Islam is the most logical or emotionally appealing choice?