Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Ifreann]

Proving that there is a god by assuming that there is a god is not especially convincing.

True, that's something I disagree with in the KCA, I think it should be replaced with "higher power(s)"

Changing what you call the thing in question doesn't change that you're proving it to exist by assuming it exists.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Not necessarily true. Since Allah SWT exists outside of the universe, he is not bound by the laws of said universe.

Special pleading. Your conclusion cannot violate your premise.

If you build a phone for example, you're not bound by the laws/inner workings of said phone. It's the same case with Allah SWT building the universe.

Additionally, in order that to be taken seriously then you’d have to prove that there is an outside of the universe.

The universe is expanding. Hence there's an outside.

And even more additionally, you’d have to prove that this being is Allah and not, say, Xaos.

True, that's something I disagree with in the KCA, I think it should be replaced with "higher power(s)"

Right now I'm talking about higher powers, not Allah SWT specifically.

[Ifreann]

Special pleading. Your conclusion cannot violate your premise.

If you build a phone for example, you're not bound by the laws/inner workings of said phone. It's the same case with Allah SWT building the universe.

If there can be things that can exist without needing a cause, how do you know that the universe is not such a thing?

[Kowani]

Special pleading. Your conclusion cannot violate your premise.

If you build a phone for example, you're not bound by the laws/inner workings of said phone. It's the same case with Allah SWT building the universe.

Additionally, in order that to be taken seriously then you’d have to prove that there is an outside of the universe.

The universe is expanding. Hence there's an outside.

Wrong kind of expansion. The universe isn’t getting any larger, rather, the scale of space itself changes.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If you build a phone for example, you're not bound by the laws/inner workings of said phone. It's the same case with Allah SWT building the universe.

If there can be things that can exist without needing a cause, how do you know that the universe is not such a thing?

Because nothing is like Allah SWT. I never said "things can exist without a cause", I said "Allah SWT can exist without a cause". Also, everything in this universe came from something, so it would make sense that the universe itself came from something.

[Christian Confederation]

https://www.ae911truth.org

In 2016, there were 109,748 architects in the U.S. In 2015, there were ~1.6 million engineers in the U.S. Your source claims that 3,104 architects and engineers support them. That's about 0.2% of that group. So no, more architects and engineers definitely do agree with the widely-accepted story of 9/11.

I'm saying more publicly support a new investigation than the couple dozen that support the official story, here is a lecture of there's I just finished watching.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bc5zF95o-UE

[Des-Bal]

I'm saying more publicly support a new investigation than the couple dozen that support the official story, here is a lecture of there's I just finished watching.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bc5zF95o-UE

People who support the official story don't form creepy clubs and write petitions about it.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If you build a phone for example, you're not bound by the laws/inner workings of said phone. It's the same case with Allah SWT building the universe.

The universe is expanding. Hence there's an outside.

Wrong kind of expansion. The universe isn’t getting any larger, rather, the scale of space itself changes.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 1498932547
Is this what you're trying to say?: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... termediate

[Godular]

Wrong kind of expansion. The universe isn’t getting any larger, rather, the scale of space itself changes.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 1498932547
Is this what you're trying to say?: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... termediate

The universe is infinitely large and expanding... into itself.

There's an analogy about this involving a hotel with infinite rooms hosting multiple groups of infinite people, but it gets complicated.

[Neutraligon]

In 2016, there were 109,748 architects in the U.S. In 2015, there were ~1.6 million engineers in the U.S. Your source claims that 3,104 architects and engineers support them. That's about 0.2% of that group. So no, more architects and engineers definitely do agree with the widely-accepted story of 9/11.

I'm saying more publicly support a new investigation than the couple dozen that support the official story, here is a lecture of there's I just finished watching.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bc5zF95o-UE

A video on youtube. anyone can write anything on youtube. Oh and supporting a new investigation does not mean they do not believe the official story. They just support more research.

[Ifreann]

If there can be things that can exist without needing a cause, how do you know that the universe is not such a thing?

Because nothing is like Allah SWT.

How do you know that? It's not like anyone can put the universe and your preferred deity side by side so we can do a comparison.

I never said "things can exist without a cause", I said "Allah SWT can exist without a cause".

Which mean that things can exist without a cause. Which means that the universe could, possibly, exist without a cause.

Also, everything in this universe came from something, so it would make sense that the universe itself came from something.

That it makes sense to you doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.

[Neutraligon]

So basically, just repurposed Aquinas. Which is still bulls*it.

I barely know who he is. Anyway, here's what the KCA says:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

1. Prove this.
2. Prove this
4. This does not follow from the premises.

[Australian rePublic]

How would He, exactly?

Well, if he was all knowing, he’d know the outcome of the bet before it happened so it’d be unnecessary.

Yes, but if the "bet" never, He would NOT know the outcome

[Australian rePublic]

I think it's just human nature to believe in a higher power.
I personally believe in God because that's what I was taught and as far as I can tell is accurate. Because Jerusalem exists, scintists agree that the flood happened, plus year after year more and more planets are found to have no life make earth apear more and more likely to have been put here by some higher power.
So unless someone can prove me wrong I will believe in God.

Archaeologist and Orthodox Christian.

The Deluge did not happen as recorded in the Old Testament; at best it records a folk memory of earlier floods.

Also:

1) Arguing that the existence of Jerusalem demonstrates the veracity of the Deluge is point-blank bizarre since even by a literal reading of the Bible Jerusalem would have been founded centuries after the Deluge; the existence of the former does not prove the latter.

2) Pinning your religious faith on the lack of known planets with life makes your faith a hostage to events you can't control, and the science of which you appear to understand poorly; especially since our ability to identify exoplanets that might potentially be suitable to life - or indeed to identify life on exoplanets - is exceptionally limited.


Really, I'm embarrassed by the shocking quality of theological argument in this thread. If you were to intentionally set out to start a thread specifically designed to make a certain sub-type of atheist feel smug about the self-evident idiocy of Christian apologetics, it would be hard to better the present discussion.

Well what do you do expect? I'm one person, arguing against many at a time. Everyone's targeting my arguments more than anyone else's, I don't have much theological training, and I'm probably not the best at expressing myself, leaving myself open to misinterpretation. Had more theists chimmed, this argument would have been very different, but it's not too late to change the coarse of it...

[Australian rePublic]

No, it is impossible to definitively prove a God that is claimed to transcend the natural world. People can believe that its existence certain, but that doesn't make it any less uncertain.

The arguments that prove Allah SWT beg to differ.

"SWT", that means "Peace and blessings be upon Him" correct? Why would an omniomni God require a measly, weak, powerless, vastly inferior human to wish Him peace?

[Salandriagado]

Yes. That doesn't change the fact that "a triangle is a triangle" is a theorem of any logical system that can express the statement.

And if there are no sentient people in the universe to construct such a logical system, that distinction would still hold true?

Yes.

[The New California Republic]

Really, I'm embarrassed by the shocking quality of theological argument in this thread. If you were to intentionally set out to start a thread specifically designed to make a certain sub-type of atheist feel smug about the self-evident idiocy of Christian apologetics, it would be hard to better the present discussion.

Well what do you do expect? I'm one person, arguing against many at a time. Everyone's targeting my arguments more than anyone else's

It might be because of the nature of your arguments that they are easier to target. Low hanging fruit and all that...

[Salandriagado]

Again, you assume your conclusion.

Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black...

No. No it isn't.

[The New California Republic]

The arguments that prove Allah SWT beg to differ.

"SWT", that means "Peace and blessings be upon Him" correct? Why would an omniomni God require a measly, weak, powerless, vastly inferior human to wish Him peace

And why would he be so concerned about us believing in him then?

[Salandriagado]

Free to choose? A lot of people are using the idea of free will to explain why God allows evil things to happen, but I don't believe that the bible provides a case for free will. As for the bit about us failing at the beginning, the Soft Theological Determinism tab is best suited.

1. Imagine you are abstract, objective, and all knowing. You know everything that has been, is, and will be, but you cannot change a single thing. You would see every individual actor go from A (birth) to Z (death) and all the choices, big and small, that happened in between. You would see all this, and nothing could possibly change. All events would happen in an unbreakable chronological design. These events will happen, and there's nothing anyone can do that can stop it. The only way to for those predetermined footsteps to change would be through classic time travel shenanigans. And even then, the event leading to the creation of time travel were predetermined, unalterable, and inevitable. Casual Determinism argues that the inevitability of action means that free will cannot exist, I agree with that.

Even if Casual Determinism is somehow wrong, the bible ITSELF doesn't do a convincing job of establishing free will as absolute. There are two kinds of religious determinism: Soft and Hard.

2. Soft Determinism is best described as the belief that God plays with dominoes. God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God is omniscient. That means that everything that has happened, was known by God to happen, allowed by God to happen, and empowered by God to happen. Take the fall of man for instance.

• God created Lucifer
• God did this knowing that Lucifer had a prideful streak
• God did this knowing that character trait of his would lead him to the fall
• God created the heavens and the earth
• God created Adam and Eve
• God created Adam and Eve with knowledge that if they were tempted, they'd disobey him
• God also knew that Satan would tempt them
• God knew that an angel guarding the garden BEFORE Satan got there would preemptively take care of that mess
• God chose not to guard the garden
• God allowed the snake to talk to Eve
• God allowed Eve to bite the fruit
• God knew (with his omniscience)that due to the character traits he gave the originating actors (Lucifer, Adam,Eve) that those events (he could've prevented with his omnipotence and omnipresence) would never have happened.
• Therefore, the fall of man was obviously a part of God's plan
• Therefore, sin, and as a a result, evil, were planned by God.

For example, it is through this kind of planning that he was able to predict the crucifixion of the Christ. He didn't FORCE the soldiers to cast lots for his clothes, but because of the domino affect and because he was able to put the pieces into play at the beginning, that the action perpetrated by the soldiers and by the Jews were 100% predictable, they were ordained, unavoidable, predetermined, NO FREE WILL.

3. Hard Determinism is best described as the belief that God plays with puppets. This is less prevalent than Soft Determinism, but works side by side IMO.

For example, God hardened Pharaoh's heart multiple times. Also, if at anytime an unaccountable God can force you to think thoughts and do things you wouldn't otherwise do, than I gotta say that there is NO FREE WILL.

Then there's also Biological Determinism, and since supposedly God created us, was also planned by God. But I don't feel like going into it.

BUT WAIT! Wouldn't that mean God orchestrated evil? Doesn't that contradict the character trait of his supposed benevolence?

Yes. And wouldn't that contradiction hint to the possibility he doesn't exist?

God's just a passive observer

Choosing not to act is still a choice, and choosing to allow evil by deciding to be a passive observer is still evil.

More to the point: why should anybody worship a passive observer? Rather by definition, a passive observer isn't going to do anything to help anybody.

And so you have no reason to believe in a god.

If we have no reason, thsn you have no reason to believe in emotion.

We have excellent reasons to believe in emotion: we observe them happening, and we understand a fair bit of the electrochemical mechanism behind them.

[Australian rePublic]

Well what do you do expect? I'm one person, arguing against many at a time. Everyone's targeting my arguments more than anyone else's

It might be because of the nature of your arguments that they are easier to target. Low hanging fruit and all that...

I'll accept that. In either case, my point still stands. I created this thread in order to learn, admitting that I'm not perfect

[The New California Republic]

It might be because of the nature of your arguments that they are easier to target. Low hanging fruit and all that...

In either case, my point still stands. I created this thread in order to learn, admitting that I'm not perfect

And by the same token the points by Arch are right on the money and accurate in every way.

[Salandriagado]

Science simply has explained everything. An experiment was done where a man had a mini Earth in his lab. He blocked it off from everything outside the dome of which covered this mini Earth. There was dirt, which was specialised to be totally dead, and he had hills, mini mountains and everything Earth would have. Except there was absolutely NO form of life, barely even most bacterias. He added the occasional rain and storm into the experiment. It took a long time, but eventually, new forms of life began to grow. I believe humans came to be by a specific order that nature chose to act in. If that doesn't disprove that God put us on Earth, then I hope someone with far more scientific knowledge than me can.

That seems like a bit of a wild claim. Got a source?

He's referring to the Miller-Urey experiment, though there have been even more successful follow-ups.

[New Legland]

The arguments that prove Allah SWT beg to differ.

"SWT", that means "Peace and blessings be upon Him" correct? Why would an omniomni God require a measly, weak, powerless, vastly inferior human to wish Him peace?

Kinda hypocritical coming from someone who believes their god also requires a measly, weak, powerless, vastly inferior human to worship him.

[New Legland]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

This isn't an argument, it's a glorified assumption.