Beleiving in God is the Norm

[Messenger]

Eh? It is not straight forward or logical. Like I said in my earlier post:

Even if evolution were debunked, belief in god would not be logical until evidence supported his/her existence (just like evidence supports evolution today).

Or did you just not want to address that?

Yes, intelligent design (by intelligence I am talking about human) is related to complexity, in inanimate objects.

Thanks
This almost proves a God

There is no convincing evidence in support of ID, if you have some you want to share you are welcome to

Yes, there is
Wait a bit and I'll not prove only that there is A God, i can prove THE GOD as well

[Tom62]

Wait a bit and I'll not prove only that there is A God, i can prove THE GOD as well

Now that would be a real miracle, because no-one has ever been able to prove the existence of [a] God.

[MariaEvri]

believing in god is the norm

I dont think so
lock up a new born baby in a confined space, talk to it about no gods no religions and no traditions, and most likely when he grows up he wont know what god is

[Messenger]

Wait a bit and I'll not prove only that there is A God, i can prove THE GOD as well

Now that would be a real miracle, because no-one has ever been able to prove the existence of [a] God.

It is a simple logical proof
The problem is that many people don't accept because they blindly believe in a God/No God of their choice

[wheels5894]

Wait a bit and I'll not prove only that there is A God, i can prove THE GOD as well

Now that would be a real miracle, because no-one has ever been able to prove the existence of [a] God.

It is a simple logical proof
The problem is that many people don't accept because they blindly believe in a God/No God of their choice

Well, let's see this proof, Messenger. Like others I am quite fascinated to see how you can prove what no one esle has been able to prove before.

[Kylyssa]

The problem is that theists are perfectly comfortable ignoring their own logic.  They'll use flawed logic to get to the point of man being a created object because he's complex but will stick their fingers in their ears yelling "lalalalalalalalalalala" if you suggest god (if it were humanity's creator) would be even more complex than man and thus also needing a creator by their own flawed logic.  

All you are going to hear is that god always existed even though it breaks the "logic" used by theists themselves.

Good question
here is the logic behind it
If God exists, he will be outside the Universe
which means he is not like anything inside it
Universal observations/laws can not apply to him (Only logic)
So the concept of complexity does not apply to him

So, then who made the God place?  If you believe there is a place outside the universe where God exists and natural laws of that place created God, then why not take it a step further and say - perhaps nothing is outside of the universe and the rules of THIS universe allow things to come together naturally to form life.  If you can decide the God universe place can allow a God to come into existence without yet another God creating it then why is it such a stretch to imagine the universe as a place where the natural properties of the universe allow for things to come together and eventually form into life?  

Also, what created the magic space outside the universe where God evolved via natural properties and characteristics of that universe?  And why is it easier to believe a God, the most complex being imaginable, can evolve in another universe without being created yet relatively simple things such as ourselves cannot?

Deciding that since the properties and characteristics of this universe don't allow what you want to be the truth to have happened it doesn't logically follow that another universe that has characteristics and properties that allow your desire to exist must exist.  

You claim you can prove the existence of the one true God - by which I assume you mean the Abrahamic God.  You will then prove how although your God is three entities - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - it is really only one.  Then you will explain how since Jesus is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost that He still sacrificed Himself as His Son, because He created Himself and agreed to torture Himself to redeem the creations He hides from and the Holy Ghost part of the split personality sat around eating popcorn, or perhaps provided special effects.

If your premise - that a universe exists where logic and natural properties and characteristics do not apply, then there may truly be somewhere that three is exactly equal to one and things mutually exclusive in a logical universe could exist together.  

Please change your worldview to Christian instead of logician - your logic only makes sense to people who accept an alternate universe where logic has a different definition - and those people are all Christians.  You probably see no contradiction in lying on your worldview and belonging to a religion which prohibits deception.

Wait!  Wait a minute.  Hang on.  I've just had an epiphany.  Fundamentalist Christians all believe in the alternate universe where contradictions are irrelevant and three is exactly equal to one and the properties and characteristics of the universe are not consistent throughout but are however you wish them to be wherever and whenever you wish.  Their idea of the universe also allows things to exist together which are mutually exclusive in ours.  That is why their Holy Book gives them rules such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" then proceeds to give them the rules for killing and all the other contradictions to be found in it.  That is why they can follow a religion which frowns on deception yet practice it constantly.  It makes so much sense now - why Jesus told them to "Love thy neighbor" yet they often do the opposite. They must believe the rules of the universe with uniform properties and characteristics only apply to we who believe that the contradictory universe doesn't exist!

[Kyuuketsuki]

Good question
here is the logic behind it
If God exists, he will be outside the Universe
which means he is not like anything inside it
Universal observations/laws can not apply to him (Only logic)
So the concept of complexity does not apply to him

Nope ...

]Does God Exist?
By
The Editor: UK Atheist & Science E-Zine

Introduction
Despite the fact that there is no evidence to support their existence many that make the claim that a god or gods exist ... for the remainder of this article such phenomena will all be referred to as God or god. In the case of Christianity, Judaism (Jehovah) or Islam (Allah) and, indeed, many other religions the god in question is an all powerful, divine force or entity that "created" or "is" or "contains" the universe and/or watches over it and/or permeates every aspect of our lives.

Discussion
To my knowledge there are no reliable instances of God being seen, heard, touched or smelt nor is it possible to design an experiment to test for its existence or non-existence. Available evidence at least implies that men wrote whatever religious scriptures currently exist and there is no evidence to indicate that a god or gods were involved in any way. In other words there is no physical or naturalistic evidence to support the existence of God/deity.

The accepted method of investigation (science) is to propose a clearly stated hypothesis and to support that hypothesis with evidence and reasoned logical deductions based upon the same. That is how science works and is the method by which humans have discovered things about our surroundings since we were able to reason. It is also understood that if a hypothesis does not "fit" in any way with other knowledge already accepted about our universe, if it cannot be supported by evidence and it cannot provide information about our universe previously unknown then it is assumed to have no value and is dismissed.

Given the above (and my statement in the second paragraph) I can draw the following assumptions to test or discuss:

1.   God is claimed to be an all powerful, divine entity, force or effect that watches over us and permeates every aspect of our lives.
2.   There exists no empirical (measurable physical or naturalistic) evidence to support the claimed existence of God that cannot be interpreted (or potentially so) in a different fashion.
3.   There are no reliable or verifiable instances of God being seen, heard, touched, smelt, tasted or otherwise observed.
4.   It is not possible to design an experiment to prove or disprove God's existence.
5.   Humans (it would seem) physically wrote whatever scriptures or other written material supporting the claimed actuality of God and there is no evidence to indicate the direct or indirect involvement of God.

On the basis that it is the supporters of the existence of a god or gods that are proposing the hypothesis that such a creator deity exists and that the natural human method of investigation results in the dismissal of untenable hypotheses then it is not unreasonable to request that the following be provided.

1.   Hard scientific evidence to support the claimed existence of whatever god or gods are being claimed to exist.
2.   Given that such evidence can, potentially at least, be provided an experiment designed to prove the existence of whatever god or gods are being claimed to exist and an indication of what kind of data would be required to disprove the existence of the same.
3.   Demonstrable evidence that whatever scriptures support the existence of the claimed god or gods were not (as is reasonably assumed) written and designed purely by men or women without divine involvement.

The universe may be defined as "the sum of all that exists" or "the physical system that is potentially observable" and, for the purpose of this discussion at least, can be considered fully interchangeable with the term "natural universe". Science is an ongoing attempt to explain the universe and in this respect has explained or is attempting to explain all that is observable. Whilst individual scientists are not always above reproach science, as a global force, is tentative in nature, cannot always consider its knowledge to be absolute & correct but is self-correcting in nature and therefore represents our best current understanding of the universe.

To be brutal God must be one of three states:
•   God exists
•   God does not exist or
•   God existed once but does not anymore (dead).

Though it is of academic interest if there once was a god but it exists no more it is beyond the scope of this discussion and typically theists do not claim this to be so. With that in mind I move on to the first two possibilities i.e. that God either exists or does not.

If God exists within the universe then it either is/will be observable, either directly or indirectly, by science or it exists outside of the universe. If all observable aspects of God exist outside of the universe then it is, by definition, supernatural and can have no impact on the universe or anything within it and, as such, science can safely discard it. If God is not supernatural then it, some part of it or something directly attributable to it must be observable in which case it is not supernatural but entirely or partially explainable.

If God is (in principle) entirely or partially explainable then it is not, by definition, supernatural but natural i.e. a part of the universe. If God exists wholly outside of the universe then there can be no observable evidence to support it's existence and no one has any reason to believe in it let alone try to convince others that God exists. If God exists within some gap in our scientific understanding of the universe then it is not only due to one day to be explained (such gaps will not remain open forever) but is also shrinking in size as our knowledge increases.

Logically therefore God must be one of the following:
•   Everywhere
•   Part of the explained universe
•   Part of the unexplained universe
•   Non-existent

God cannot exist within the parts of the universe we have explained ... if so God would have been explained (partially or wholly) and would therefore already be a part of the natural and explained universe. For the same reason God cannot be everywhere, for if it were it would be possible to observe and test some parts of it. If it is a part of the universe that we have not explained then it must be a "god of the gaps" i.e. it exists somewhere in the gaps of knowledge we have so far failed to explain. If, as pointed out above, that is true then every time we discover something new this "god of the gaps" gets a little smaller.

The final option is that God does not exist ... this needs no justification, no proof, no evidence.

Conclusion
It is evident that, if God exists and affects us, God must exist within the confines of our universe; by definition the universe is everything that is observable and can be considered a boundary across which information does not flow. If God does exist in our universe then God must be observable. Also if God was not observable then God cannot observe us. If God is not observable then it is impossible for anyone to have experienced the presence of God, so if God is unobservable then God cannot exist and anyone who ever claimed to have experienced god (personally or otherwise) has merely experienced a delusion.

There is no validatable evidence (that cannot be more reasonably interpreted) to support the existence of God so it is hard to see why any reasoning human being should consider that one should exist since our entire investment in knowledge (by which I refer to those things we "know" or have discovered about our universe) is based on empirical data. With that in mind and with specific (& somewhat cynical) reference to claims of a "god/gods of the gaps (which presumably is where God must exist in the absence of any other evidence) it must follow that at one point that god was potentially huge but nowadays is getting somewhat smaller ... indeed one imagines that the sceptic should be careful lest he tread on the apologetic's "god of the gaps" without realising it.

Richard Dawkins wrote "It is often said that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

References
•   E-mail discussions with Iron Cestus.

So, given that (by definition) the universe is all there is and nothing can exist outside it, your god is nowhere.

Kyu

[wheels5894]

WoW! It looks so obvious a proof when  I read it but I wouldn't have come up with it! It certainly leaves some problems for theists I think. Even the FSM would have trouble passing this although I believe pasts you buy is actually part of his noodly appendages. heck, that doesn't work - he becomes part of the the known universe and dissappears in a puff of logic.

[bowmore]

So, given that (by definition) the universe is all there is and nothing can exist outside it, your god is nowhere.

Kyu

Oooo!!

Let me formalize

1. The universe is all that exists
2. God exists outside the universe
3. Therefore god does not exist.

Perhaps for clarity's sake we should replace 'universe' with 'reality' to avoid confusion in contexts that consider multiverses to be possible. So :

• Reality is all that exists (definition)
• God exists outside reality
• Therefore god does not exist.

[Messenger]

1. The universe is all that exists
2. God exists outside the universe
3. Therefore god does not exist.

Perhaps for clarity's sake we should replace 'universe' with 'reality' to avoid confusion in contexts that consider multiverses to be possible. So :

• Reality is all that exists (definition)
• God exists outside reality
• Therefore god does not exist.

Your assumptions are not proved
but what we can be sure of is that
If God exists he will be outside/separate from the universe

[wheels5894]

but what we can be sure of is that
If God exists he will be outside/separate from the universe

And you reasoning that brings you there?

There is the problem that we cannot know anything beyond our reality (universe) so we have the joint problem of: -

1. How can we know there is a supernatural being outside our reality?
2. Were there such a being, how would it be able to interact with our reality bearing in mind that any supernatural being that is beyond our reality (such as Plato's god) is completely irrelevant to us and certainly does not need worship or prayer.

[Messenger]

There is the problem that we cannot know anything beyond our reality (universe)

Not only we can, we can prove as well

so we have the joint problem of: -
1. How can we know there is a supernatural being outside our reality?
2. Were there such a being, how would it be able to interact with our reality bearing in mind that any supernatural being that is beyond our reality (such as Plato's god) is completely irrelevant to us and certainly does not need worship or prayer.

It can be proven, wait a bit

[bowmore]

but what we can be sure of is that
If God exists he will be outside/separate from the universe

And you reasoning that brings you there?

There is the problem that we cannot know anything beyond our reality (universe) so we have the joint problem of: -

1. How can we know there is a supernatural being outside our reality?
2. Were there such a being, how would it be able to interact with our reality bearing in mind that any supernatural being that is beyond our reality (such as Plato's god) is completely irrelevant to us and certainly does not need worship or prayer.

Please pay attention to your quoting : you've quoted me posting something I didn't post!

[bowmore]

Your assumptions are not proved
but what we can be sure of is that
If God exists he will be outside/separate from the universe

1 is a definition.
2 is your assumption
3 is the necessary conclusion.

But who am I to stop you from disagreeing with your own assumptions.  

[Kyuuketsuki]

1. The universe is all that exists
2. God exists outside the universe
3. Therefore god does not exist.

Yes & no ... "God" could be in either but the fact that he hasn't been detected in it so far implies that he is, if he exists at all, outside. I think we can use universe because it is defined as all that exists so the argument encompasses the "multiverse" if they are ever demonstrated to exist with reasonable certainty.

Perhaps for clarity's sake we should replace 'universe' with 'reality' to avoid confusion in contexts that consider multiverses to be possible. So :

Kyu