Does God Exist?

[Tanoshiiye]

Yes, God exist.
I would give three arguments that would prove this.
First, the complexity of life and the universe itself is not something that can be made through random selection which The Darwinian Theory and the Darwinians claim. There must be an intelligent creator or Architect
Second, He is the main cause of everything. The universe can't just exist and it didn't just began, it is there for a reason, for an end.
Lastly, something could never come out of nothing.

Oohh, teleological and cosmological argument for the existence of God. Two arguments, fellow Christian but this would only make sense to believers like us.

[Sociobiology]

But God gave us free will, surely he would be able to manage to instill in us a sense of the divine so there's no atheism at all, correct?

Why would he need to do that? To instill something like that preventing us from forming specific opinions would not be free will. And actually we are born with a divine sense, naturally leaning towards religion. Link

so because a blog says so?
I can find a blog arguing the moon is made of cheese.

[Tanoshiiye]

Why would he need to do that? To instill something like that preventing us from forming specific opinions would not be free will. And actually we are born with a divine sense, naturally leaning towards religion. Link

so because a blog says so?
I can find a blog arguing the moon is made of cheese.

Refute a person's argument, or the content of the source, not the source.

[Sociobiology]

so because a blog says so?
I can find a blog arguing the moon is made of cheese.

Refute a person's argument, or the content of the source, not the source.

I cant refute an argument that doesn't exist, that's the problem with using a blog, they use rhetoric and wordplay instead of an argument.
because I get angry when my car does not start is not the same thing as believing your car can actually think on its own. It is certainly different than claiming your ca is a god.
I know what paper the blogger is referring to and they completely misrepresent it. That would be the problem with blogs and other non-sources they can lie to your face while making it hard to show that because they do not reference their information.
So again find a real source for your claim.
If your source is shit, I don't need to refute the claim because you have no evidence for your claim.

[Risottia]

Yes, God exist.
I would give three arguments that would prove this.
First, the complexity of life and the universe itself is not something that can be made through random selection which The Darwinian Theory and the Darwinians claim.

Prove it. Also, the theory of evolution isn't about the whole Universe.

There must be an intelligent creator or Architect

You're stating that "this theory doesn't work" implies "there must be a Creator/Demiurge". This is a non sequitur.

Second, He is the main cause of everything. The universe can't just exist and it didn't just began, it is there for a reason, for an end.

State what end, state what reason, and prove them.

Lastly, something could never come out of nothing.

Quantum fluctuation has been observed. Hence your statement is counterfactual, aka wrong.

[Salandriagado]

There's no evidence for free will.

Neither is there evidence for Pre-destination.

Sure there is: there is no part of physics that gives any mechanism by which free will can enter the universe.

Yes, God exist.
I would give three arguments that would prove this.
First, the complexity of life and the universe itself is not something that can be made through random selection which The Darwinian Theory and the Darwinians claim. There must be an intelligent creator or Architect

Factually incorrect.

Second, He is the main cause of everything. The universe can't just exist and it didn't just began, it is there for a reason, for an end.

Unjustified assumption.

Lastly, something could never come out of nothing.

Neither true nor relevant.

[Jute]

Refute a person's argument, or the content of the source, not the source.

I cant refute an argument that doesn't exist, that's the problem with using a blog, they use rhetoric and wordplay instead of an argument.
because I get angry when my car does not start is not the same thing as believing your car can actually think on its own. It is certainly different than claiming your ca is a god.
I know what paper the blogger is referring to and they completely misrepresent it. That would be the problem with blogs and other non-sources they can lie to your face while making it hard to show that because they do not reference their information.
So again find a real source for your claim.
If your source is shit, I don't need to refute the claim because you have no evidence for your claim.

The Guardian
Telegraph

The spent a whole crap ton of money, “involved 57 academics in 20 countries around the world, and spanned disciplines including anthropology, psychology, and philosophy” to conclude [...]: Religion is an integral part of human nature. We are born with a belief in the supernatural. Children under 5, with no environmental or parenting influence, think religiously.
As Professor Roger Trigg, from Oxford University and the project’s co-director says: “Attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.”
To this I would only add this: If you deny a child religion, he will only create his own. Tell him nothing about God and the spiritual battle of good and evil — he’ll resist you. You’ll see him with a stick one day, swinging at the dragons that surrounds him — a dogmatic supernaturalist.

Source
Doesn't sound like misrepresenting to me. Besides, I'd argue that religion carries an evolutionary benefit.

[Jute]

Yes, God exist.
I would give three arguments that would prove this.
First, the complexity of life and the universe itself is not something that can be made through random selection which The Darwinian Theory and the Darwinians claim. There must be an intelligent creator or Architect
Second, He is the main cause of everything. The universe can't just exist and it didn't just began, it is there for a reason, for an end.
Lastly, something could never come out of nothing.

Oohh, teleological and cosmological argument for the existence of God. Two arguments, fellow Christian but this would only make sense to believers like us.

This is why you can't scientifically "prove" or "disprove" God, because that's not how religion works. They're different. Also, I still don't understand what's wrong with a religious belief. It doesn't make you stupid or ignorant, plenty of scientists are religious, even today. See inventor of the Big Bang theory, a Jesuit Priest, Georges Lemaître.
And I certainly don't agree with the notion that fairy tales are somehow "damaging" to children, as a popular atheist seems to claim. (Link)
These people would do good to learn some values typically associated with Christianity: Compassion, kindness and sympathy.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

typically associated with Christianity: Compassion, kindness and sympathy.

Don't need religion to teach you that.

And if you can name three good things, plenty of bad things can be said as well.

[Jute]

typically associated with Christianity: Compassion, kindness and sympathy.

Don't need religion to teach you that.

Don't need doesn't mean that it can't be done. Religion can be one way of teaching morals. Though secular teachings are always affected by the culture (upbringing in ancient Sparta would be different than upbringing in today's New York), which in turn is often influenced by the predominant religion.

And if you can name three good things, plenty of bad things can be said as well.

That's true for almost everything, though. And that list wasn't exhaustive, obviously.

[Fireye]

Which one?

There are a lot of gods.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Yes, God exist.
I would give three arguments that would prove this.
First, the complexity of life and the universe itself is not something that can be made through random selection which The Darwinian Theory and the Darwinians claim. There must be an intelligent creator or Architect
Second, He is the main cause of everything. The universe can't just exist and it didn't just began, it is there for a reason, for an end.
Lastly, something could never come out of nothing.

Read the God delusion and watch those arguments fall flat on there face

[Jute]

Yes, God exist.
I would give three arguments that would prove this.
First, the complexity of life and the universe itself is not something that can be made through random selection which The Darwinian Theory and the Darwinians claim. There must be an intelligent creator or Architect
Second, He is the main cause of everything. The universe can't just exist and it didn't just began, it is there for a reason, for an end.
Lastly, something could never come out of nothing.

Read the God delusion and watch those arguments fall flat on there face

Did you ever read about the various criticisms surrounding that book? The arguments falling flat are the ones from the book. From what I've read and heard, its claims are based around fallacies and ignorance of what constitutes Christianity and Christian theology.

[Czeckolutania]

Personally I'm more agnostic than I am anything else. I think the real question is, does it matter if god exists? Why should people not have the freedom to sing songs and think thoughts to whoever they want? Religion in and of itself does not cause any problems, it's what people do I with religion that causes problems. The same principle is true with money. Should we ban money because of the class divides it creates? Or the crime people commit for it?

[Creepoc Infinite]

Read the God delusion and watch those arguments fall flat on there face

Did you ever read about the various criticisms surrounding that book? The arguments falling flat are the ones from the book. From what I've read and heard, its claims are based around fallacies and ignorance of what constitutes Christianity and Christian theology.

Perhaps you should read it?
And yes I have read the criticisms.
They would have more credit if it wasn't mostly religious people making criticisms.

[Fireye]

Did you ever read about the various criticisms surrounding that book? The arguments falling flat are the ones from the book. From what I've read and heard, its claims are based around fallacies and ignorance of what constitutes Christianity and Christian theology.

Perhaps you should read it?
And yes I have read the criticisms.
They would have more credit if it wasn't mostly religious people making criticisms.

Don't forget that they're using logic that makes Ken Ham look like he does science.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Personally I'm more agnostic than I am anything else. I think the real question is, does it matter if god exists? Why should people not have the freedom to sing songs and think thoughts to whoever they want? Religion in and of itself does not cause any problems, it's what people do I with religion that causes problems. The same principle is true with money. Should we ban money because of the class divides it creates? Or the crime people commit for it?

No, religion inherently is what people used to explain the world around them.
But we have better alternatives to that stuff, society has advanced to appoint where religion is nothing but a pestilence.

[Jute]

Did you ever read about the various criticisms surrounding that book? The arguments falling flat are the ones from the book. From what I've read and heard, its claims are based around fallacies and ignorance of what constitutes Christianity and Christian theology.

Perhaps you should read it?
And yes I have read the criticisms.
They would have more credit if it wasn't mostly religious people making criticisms.

Why should I read it if I know that I won't gain anything from it? I already know what it's about, demonizing religion, a fundamental part of human nature, society and culture since times immoral. As for the criticism:

Nevertheless the book received mixed reviews from critics, including both religious and atheist commentators.[28][29] In the London Review of Books, Terry Eagleton criticised Richard Dawkins for not doing proper research into the topic of his work, religion, and setting up a straw man to make his arguments against theism valid.[30] [...]

Link

[Creepoc Infinite]

Perhaps you should read it?
And yes I have read the criticisms.
They would have more credit if it wasn't mostly religious people making criticisms.

Why should I read it if I know that I won't gain anything from it? I already know what it's about, demonizing religion, a fundamental part of human nature, society and culture since times immoral. As for the criticism:

Nevertheless the book received mixed reviews from critics, including both religious and atheist commentators.[28][29] In the London Review of Books, Terry Eagleton criticised Richard Dawkins for not doing proper research into the topic of his work, religion, and setting up a straw man to make his arguments against theism valid.[30] [...]

Link

Richard Dawkins left links in his book, citing sources and places to find the information he put into the book.
Plus, you don't even know what it's about because you have not even read it.
You think it's about demonizing religion? You clearly haven't read it. It's about attempting to explain why people believe what they believe and disproving and refuting certain god arguments, as well as discussing why hostility toward religion is necessary.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Perhaps you should read it?
And yes I have read the criticisms.
They would have more credit if it wasn't mostly religious people making criticisms.

Don't forget that they're using logic that makes Ken Ham look like he does science.

Ken Ham the BullSh*t Man is a pseudo scientist that distorts what science really is in order to make it fit with his religion which he cannot otherwise justify

[Jute]

Why should I read it if I know that I won't gain anything from it? I already know what it's about, demonizing religion, a fundamental part of human nature, society and culture since times immoral. As for the criticism:
Link

Richard Dawkins left links in his book, citing sources and places to find the information he put into the book.
Plus, you don't even know what it's about because you have not even read it.
You think it's about demonizing religion? You clearly haven't read it. It's about attempting to explain why people believe what they believe and disproving and refuting certain god arguments, as well as discussing why hostility toward religion is necessary.

Do you have anything to counter the criticism brought up by the atheist and religious commentators? Giving links and citing sources alone doesn't necessarily make it any more believable, it depends on the sources and how they were used. And arguing that hostility towards religion is necessary does sound like demonizing religion to me, otherwise there would be no need for hostility.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Richard Dawkins left links in his book, citing sources and places to find the information he put into the book.
Plus, you don't even know what it's about because you have not even read it.
You think it's about demonizing religion? You clearly haven't read it. It's about attempting to explain why people believe what they believe and disproving and refuting certain god arguments, as well as discussing why hostility toward religion is necessary.

Do you have anything to counter the criticism brought up by the atheist and religious commentators? Giving links and citing sources alone doesn't necessarily make it any more believable, it depends on the sources and how they were used. And arguing that hostility towards religion is necessary does sound like demonizing religion to me, otherwise there would be no need for hostility.

Hostility is necessary

But let's focus on the real topic of the thread, does god exist
I couldn't care less what you think of the god delusion. Or what the criticisms are, I'm not going to address them until I finish the book.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Do you have anything to counter the criticism brought up by the atheist and religious commentators? Giving links and citing sources alone doesn't necessarily make it any more believable, it depends on the sources and how they were used. And arguing that hostility towards religion is necessary does sound like demonizing religion to me, otherwise there would be no need for hostility.

Hostility is necessary

But let's focus on the real topic of the thread, does god exist
I couldn't care less what you think of the god delusion. Or what the criticism are, I'm not going to, address them until I finish the book.

Besides, I'm in the middle of class and can't exactly get you sources to counter the criticisms anyway

[Jute]

Do you have anything to counter the criticism brought up by the atheist and religious commentators? Giving links and citing sources alone doesn't necessarily make it any more believable, it depends on the sources and how they were used. And arguing that hostility towards religion is necessary does sound like demonizing religion to me, otherwise there would be no need for hostility.

Hostility is necessary

But let's focus on the real topic of the thread, does god exist
I couldn't care less what you think of the god delusion. Or what the criticisms are, I'm not going to address them until I finish the book.

I don't understand why it would be.
Richard Dawkins's lack of sympathy for those who cling to religion is a shame Written on the Guardian by an atheist.
As for whether or not god/God exists, this sums up my position:

Whether or not a God actually exists isn't the important question, because his/her/its existence can never be proved or disproved.

I think the real questions should be: 'Do you want God to exist?' and 'Would belief in God help you to cope with your life?'

Regardless of what the ultimate truth may be, most people tend to value their lives above truth, and if believing in a God gives some people hope for the future and improves their psychological ability to survive, then so be it.

Dictatorial atheists like Professor Richard Dawkins only care about so-called objective science, and not the basic human right of people to imagine, think about, and believe in whatever they choose.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Hostility is necessary

But let's focus on the real topic of the thread, does god exist
I couldn't care less what you think of the god delusion. Or what the criticisms are, I'm not going to address them until I finish the book.

I don't understand why it would be.
Richard Dawkins's lack of sympathy for those who cling to religion is a shame Written on the Guardian by an atheist.
As for whether or not god/God exists, this sums up my position:

Whether or not a God actually exists isn't the important question, because his/her/its existence can never be proved or disproved.

I think the real questions should be: 'Do you want God to exist?' and 'Would belief in God help you to cope with your life?'

Regardless of what the ultimate truth may be, most people tend to value their lives above truth, and if believing in a God gives some people hope for the future and improves their psychological ability to survive, then so be it.

Dictatorial atheists like Professor Richard Dawkins only care about so-called objective science, and not the basic human right of people to imagine, think about, and believe in whatever they choose.

We can disprove PERSONAL gods. Not god in general as a general concept. Belief in god can help people cope with their lives, but it made me miserable. The Christian god doesn't exist, neither does the other personal gods, but a deist god might exist.
Although their isn't any reason to believe he does.