A Reasonable Argument for God's Existence

"One must conclude that ... a scenario describing the genesis of life on Earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." (Dr. H.P. Yockey, physicist, information theorist and contributor to the Manhattan Project)

"The theory behind theory is that you come up with truly testable ideas. Otherwise it's no different from faith. It might as well be a religion if there's no evidence for it." (Dr. J. Craig Venter, Biologist and one of the first people to sequence the human genome)

Link to article.....

Stating that theory A is as unbelievable as theory B does not make theory B any more believable.
I don't see much along the lines of a "reasonable agrument" here.

Reasonable? Is that what the heading says.
Don't see no "reasoning" there

Wow. I guess we now have to go about begging for people's mind to be shut & continue believing this rubbish.

"We don't have proof. Neither do you!
Soooooo... obviously, our theory is the true theory.
.
.
.
Cos god says so"

reply to post by BeenieWeenie


I'm not exactly sure what your point is but:

The theory behind theory is that you come up with truly testable ideas. Otherwise it's no different from faith.

sums it up nicely. Science looks at how, and tries to determine the why, but science is really only dealing with HOW.

Religion, specifically 'god' is the opposite. It explains the why and essentially tells you not to look at the how.

Science can explain, quite detailed, how the earth formed in our solar system and how live evolved into complex forms, we can point to various pieces of evidence that support this.

What evidence do we have that god exists? None. This isn't to say he doesn't, but blindly believing, whilst ignoring provable facts, isn't exactly the answer either, you need to balance it.

I'm more than prepared to, if proven, admit I'm wrong and god is real and did it all. Until then, I'll keep going with this crazy old science that proves stuff with experiments instead of scripture

Originally posted by letmeDANz
Reasonable? Is that what the heading says.
Don't see no "reasoning" there

Wow. I guess we now have to go about begging for people's mind to be shut & continue believing this rubbish.

"We don't have proof. Neither do you!
Soooooo... obviously, our theory is the true theory.
.
.
.
Cos god says so"

edit on 11-3-2011 by letmeDANz because: (no reason given)

So say we all.. (Us pink unicorns on the moon that is)

We agree!

That was...meww...ok. But this is a great argument for the existence, and fits perfectly with all a have been reading about string theory.

vodpod.com...

Originally posted by BeenieWeenie

"One must conclude that ... a scenario describing the genesis of life on Earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

This is not a reasonable argument. This is a logical fallacy. This is called the argument from ignorance. In other words since we don't yet have a conclusive answer for "A", then "B" must hold true.

Claiming that this mystery can be solved by introducing another mystery: "god", is also far from being a reasonable argument.

Can anyone prove to me that the sky is blue?

The only reasonable argument that a god may exist is basically "why not?"

In the whole of all that exists, has existed and will exist it's a pretty safe bet that somewhere at sometime there is something that could qualify as a "superior being."

I think it'd be pretty foolish to believe otherwise.

Literal god of the bible? Probably not. Some sort of god-like thing somewhere? Sure, why not?

In the end what difference does it make? The whole ontology thing is a pretty grand waste of time if you ask me. Would proof positive one way or the other really change anything for anybody? I cant imagine it having any affect at all on my life.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy

Can anyone prove to me that the sky is blue?

www.suite101.com...

The internet can be your friend.

Lets make this clear, a "Creator" doesn't always have to be god.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

The internet can be your friend.

Ahh, so everything on the internet is the truth. Gotcha.

I uploaded this to my other YouTube page:

which god are we talking about here, i reckon it was zeuss, oden, allah and ra all working together a bit like the fantastic 4 but without the cheesy main characters. maybe nick fury is their leader.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

The internet can be your friend.

Ahh, so everything on the internet is the truth. Gotcha.

Certainly not.
But it is good for simple questions frequently asked by children such as, 'why is the sky blue?'.

reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy


Well I can tell you god made it blue so it's blue. Or, I could use various fields of science to explain to you why it is blue, the mechanism that makes it blue, and prove that to you.

Absence of proof is not proof, and that's essentially the argument. Science can't 100% say god didn't create the universe, but it can show you 99% of the rest of the story. This doesn't mean god did it end of story, this means current science can't explain it, this doesn't mean it won't eventually.

Why do I put such faith in science? An MRI machine is a perfect example. without science, we wouldn't have it. Without theoretical physics, we wouldn't have them. Without the quest for scientific knowledge, instead of religious dogma, we'd have none of these things.

Sure, science can't tell you exactly what happened before the universe, but it does a hell of a lot better a job at explaining our world than religion ever did, and probably will ever do, and unlike religion, it's in a constant state of evolution.

As for "Creator" not being god, I disagree. "God" doesn't have to be an intelligent being with a plan. A creator, but the very definition, is. I can say, to me, "God" is the physical laws that govern our world. For it to be a creator, it has to be creating something, and to me that denotes intelligence and a plan.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

But it is good for simple questions frequently asked by children such as, 'why is the sky blue?'.

Yeah that's cool man, I see what you've done there...
I was going for the more philosophical bent, and you chose the route of "duh, you can just look it up".

I swear though, I looked up at the sky last night and it wasn't blue at all!

The story of any god is laughable at best. The story of Jesus is only 2k years old. If you add the alleged " creation ' of the old testament, your looking at maybe a combined time frame of 5k years. But here's the problem, if the story of creation is roughly 5k years old, how is it that the remains of a domestic dog were found, and proven by DNA testing, not to mention the skull fragments to be 14k years old?

source; www.redorbit.com...


Kinda puts a damper on the story of creation doesn't it.

To top it off:

The remains of an ice-age child, who died about 11,500 years ago and who appears to have been gently placed in a hearth and cremated inside a house, have been unearthed in Alaska.

Full story here:

source: www.montrealgazette.com...



The suggested math doesn't lie.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
Yeah that's cool man, I see what you've done there...
I was going for the more philosophical bent, and you chose the route of "duh, you can just look it up".

I swear though, I looked up at the sky last night and it wasn't blue at all!

Perhaps you received such a ludicrous response because your "philosophical" reply was anything but. So, any opinion on whether the OP's argument is reasonable?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Perhaps you received such a ludicrous response because your "philosophical" reply was anything but. So, any opinion on whether the OP's argument is reasonable

It certainly wasn't entertained in your mind as philosophical, since all I got was a website link.
(Wouldn't expect much more from a drummer though... I've jammed with enough of ya to know.)

As far as the OP's "argument" which was just a link to someone else's article, i see no useful information there.

The nature of existence as a whole cannot be ascertained by lesser creatures dwelling within it.