It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Reasonable Argument for God's Existence

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I always have a good laugh when people use Science as their argument, it isn't Infallible.

George Bernard Shaw.......


"Science is always wrong, it never solves a problem without creating ten more."


Here is a nice little web site about Science that was wrong...
www.toptenz.net...

Im sure i was taught this at school.........lol
gussetnews.blogspot.com...

When science becomes infallible and they tell me there is no God i will accept it. Until that day comes i will happily believe in God.




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

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


How could you possibly know such a thing? This too is a fallacious argument called the argument from personal incredulity.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





How could you possibly know such a thing?


All I know is what I DON'T know... and I know that no one else really knows either, else we'd all know!

In order to have a complete understanding of existence we would have to instinctively know what it's like to be a quark, a buffalo, a butter dish, dark matter and a candy cane all at once.

We do not have the capacity to experience ALL in this limited form, therefore we have an incomplete picture and thus a limited understanding of reality.


edit on 11-3-2011 by DeReK DaRkLy because: appened



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
We do not have the capacity to experience ALL in this limited form


That is irrelevant to your original claim. You said:

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

You're now claiming that we must have the ability to subjectively experience the universe from every conceivable viewpoint to ascertain the nature of existence.

I now have to ask how you can claim to know this



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 




You're now claiming that we must have the ability to subjectively experience the universe from every conceivable viewpoint to ascertain the nature of existence. I now have to ask how you can claim to know this


It only seems logical that in order to gain a total working education of reality, one cannot exclude any piece of information pertaining to it.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy
 


And that is called the argument from personal incredulity.
...



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BeenieWeenie
 


"not yet"

Key words.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





And that is called the argument from personal incredulity.


No it isn't, because I have not excluded the "third possibility".



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy

No it isn't, because I have not excluded the "third possibility".


Actually, it is.
Feel free though to add the "third possibility"...



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   


Actually, it is. Feel free though to add the "third possibility"


The third possibility is what I've been saying all along... that we don't have enough knowledge to prove or disprove anything regarding the complete nature of God and/or existence.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
The third possibility is what I've been saying all along... that we don't have enough knowledge to prove or disprove anything regarding the complete nature of God and/or existence.


Not having enough knowledge at the moment does not imply we'll never have it (as was your original point)

You: "The nature of existence as a whole cannot be ascertained"

As far as god(s) and their natures go, first someone must establish that some deity exists. To date there is no evidence of any such thing, therefore, the need to disprove it is futile.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

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." (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.....


Thank you for presenting another "god of the gaps" example by substituting a lack of knowledge with magic, aka god.


That's not a reasonable argument, you might just as well claim a giant purple space turtle did it all



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncle Gravity
 





When science becomes infallible and they tell me there is no God i will accept it. Until that day comes i will happily believe in God.


Which is hilarious given how many times religions of this world have been proven wrong. Noah's silly flood, comets being a "sign of god", diseases as punishment by god (lol), and the list goes on. All stuff that's completely been debunked...but I guess if it makes you happy to believe in fairy tales rather than factual science, it's all good



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by BeenieWeenie
 

I read the linked article. Its argument can be summed up in two sentences. ‘Scientists have sought the understand how life originated for 150 years, without success. Therefore we must accept that God (miraculously) did it.’

Not very impressive, I'm afraid.

However, I was impressed by this part:


This entire discussion is taking place outside of an evolutionary context. Evolution can only begin once we already have a dazzlingly complex, self-replicating, living cell with which to work. That -- the origin of that first cell, not what happened thereafter -- is the fundamental basis of disagreement between theist and atheist.

This forum is full of creationists vainly trying to conflate abiogenesis with evolution to claim that, just because there is no theory of abiogenesis, the theory of evolution is somehow falsified. Perhaps they will shut up now that they have a fellow creationist's word for it.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
The third possibility is what I've been saying all along... that we don't have enough knowledge to prove or disprove anything regarding the complete nature of God and/or existence.


Not having enough knowledge at the moment does not imply we'll never have it (as was your original point)

You: "The nature of existence as a whole cannot be ascertained"

As far as god(s) and their natures go, first someone must establish that some deity exists. To date there is no evidence of any such thing, therefore, the need to disprove it is futile.

Didn't you just call someone else out for appealing to ignorance? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And how do you know that there isn't evidence? Where is the evidence that you "know" this? You also might want to learn what doxastic attitudes are, because believing not-p requires evidence according to evidentialism.

Question for you: where's the evidence for evidentialism? And since you claim to be a "skeptic" (More like dogmatist, as a philosophical skeptic wouldn't be an Atheist) You should have a look at this - Agrippa's trilemma:



If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen Trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:
* The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
* The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
* The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty) The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options. In contemporary epistemology, advocates of coherentism are supposed to be accepting the "circular" horn of the trilemma; foundationalists are relying on the axiomatic argument. Not as popular, views that accept (perhaps reluctantly) the infinite regress are branded infinitism.







edit on 12-3-2011 by cLOUDDEAD because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by cLOUDDEAD
 


There's as much evidence for god as there is for unicorns...none


You're welcome to prove me wrong and present evidence...if you can't, while still believing in a deity, you are acting highly irrational and illogical.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Saw this thread and I wanted to suggest the book "Is God a Delusion?". It's a very well written, thought out response to those who are skeptical about the belief in a higher power. Cheers!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Sundowner
 

Don't you have to read The God Delusion first?

Or will just the Bible do?



edit on 14/3/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BeenieWeenie
 


Standard and quite typical 'god of the gaps' argument. There is a gap in human knowledge, therefore this gap proves that we must posit a supernatural all-powerful being as its cause.

Yeah...not a reasonable argument one bit.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
God does exist but if I even mention it I'm attacked. America is more anit-Christian than the rest of the world. If I say UFOs, chemtrails, Planet X then it's believable, but if I suggest there's a supreme being who made everything and Bible prophecy is coming true then it's horrific. That alone should tell you there's some truth to it. Besides, if God doesn't exist then I lose nothing. If I'm right and He does exist and this is humanity's last change for repentance; that He gave us free will so we can love Him based on faith alone, then you lose your soul forever.

I'm not selling rosary beeds, cookies, or looking for children to molest. I care about my fellow man and your destiny. I don't want you to hurt. I don't care if that offends you. I'm allowed to care because that's another part of God's free will.

If you'd just take a chance and say a prayer in Jesus's name asking Him to come into your heart and BELIEVE that's who you're talking to, you'd be suprised



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join