Does God exist?

[McCulloch]

By what arguments can a believer in the one true god demonstrate to an unbeliever that God does exist?

What do you mean when you use the word God?

[Scotracer]

Outline the "logical" argument as to why they can't, then. I challenge your claim - either verify or retract.

You mean show you physical proof that gender can be changed from male - female?

No, the logical proof that it's impossible. Logic is the analysis of arguments and you have said yourself that it's not logical...so show the logical argument with premise(s) and your conclusions. Myself and others shall test it for fallacies.

Ive been continously saying that its not logicaly possible to prove physical things, you have to show physicaly, so I dont think its something false in this.

Well then why did you say you can't logically change sex? You are making no sense.

Oho, leave this part, its just for other member, it will just confuse you.

It's pretty simple: You gave a question with only two possible solutions when there are more in reality. That is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. If you don't understand this, perhaps you shouldn't be debating the logic of things.

See here:

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options

Source

You gave two options: By chance or evolved themselves. You have ignored the other options hence formed a false dichotomy. Your argument is illogical therefore invalid. Re-write your initial question to be logically valid.

Those 2 options were not given by me, It was taken from the statements given by user. 1st of all, why there will be many options of start of humans life in earth? it should be 1 only.
Too many options means its assumption, and possibility.

Yes they were.

How Human came into being, you said "They Evolved", how they evolved? by themselve or by chance?

Post 91

So either you have a bad memory or you are deliberating back-tracking...and quite badly, I might add. The bolded is the false dichotomy.

And of course there is only one solution, but the question you made was illogical. Really TR this is basic logic - catch up.

I showed in the post to the person, that how come human evolve, by chance or themselve? means either 1 of two, are you implying to say that I mean humans came through both methods?

You still don't understand the logical fallacy of the question and until you do, no one has to answer your question. At least read the Wikipedia entry on this or retract the claim - we're not hear to baby you into understanding your own claims.

I understand, maybe you dont my friend. Let leave all arguments behind, just answer this simply, how humans evolve, rather than letting me read article, ofcourse ive read enough of those, I want to know from you, not give me your answer. SImple enough..

No it's quite clear you don't understand it - you are still using this false dichotomy of chance versus intentional evolution on the side of the animal itself. Both are wrong therefore it is a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or question. And until you understand this I don't expect anyone will answer your question.

[TrueReligion]

No it's quite clear you don't understand it - you are still using this false dichotomy of chance versus intentional evolution on the side of the animal itself. Both are wrong therefore it is a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or question. And until you understand this I don't expect anyone will answer your question.

I;am sorry, we are 2 minds here, I;am making it simple for you, still you are going in harder ways.

Suppose, 1 normal man, who dont know wikipedia, or science, or your logic or argument of how human came. The person have 1 answer, God made human. Now how can you tell that person? you will continously say he is giving false dichotomy? he will just ask what the hell is this.
And sorry to say, I got atleast some answer from Mcllouch, but till now you failed to answer anything.

[FinalEnigma]

That one I already answered. I said they evolved.
Then you asked "BY themselves? or by chance?"
that question is a false dichotomy. it presents only two possible answers, when there are more than two possibilities. Also both of the possible answers provided are wrong.
Humans evolved through a process of mutation and natural selection. nowe did not evolve from chipmunks, that is another logical fallacy(a strawman)

All the reasons you are giving my friend, is leading to 1 way, what was the 1st initial living being on earth, is this ok with you?

I'm done addressing this red herring(and another logical fallacy, by the way).

Seriously. it is time for you to address my challenges to your claims from several pages ago in post 81.

This is not right, I should say also that I'am not going to waste my time on all those arguments.[/quote]
Then why did you make those arguments to begin with? do you retract your original claims?

[Scotracer]

No it's quite clear you don't understand it - you are still using this false dichotomy of chance versus intentional evolution on the side of the animal itself. Both are wrong therefore it is a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or question. And until you understand this I don't expect anyone will answer your question.

I;am sorry, we are 2 minds here, I;am making it simple for you, still you are going in harder ways.

Suppose, 1 normal man, who dont know wikipedia, or science, or your logic or argument of how human came. The person have 1 answer, God made human. Now how can you tell that person? you will continously say he is giving false dichotomy? he will just ask what the hell is this.
And sorry to say, I got atleast some answer from Mcllouch, but till now you failed to answer anything.

Consider my previous posts on this subject and reconsider your position. I have done everything within my power to explain to you why you are incorrect but you continue to not understand. But even after this, I still expect some leg-work on the debate topics from my opponent. I will not give you the answers but I have explained on how to get them. Can this be wilful ignorance? I am here to debate, not to lay out explanations on a platter.

I have told you that your question is a false dichotomy, I have explained what a false-dichotomy is (as has FinalEnigma) with reference to a definition, I have pointed you towards a Wikipedia article on this very topic, I have in fact answered the question:

Post 106

To answer your question: NEITHER.

So if you don't get it after all this time I'm left wondering if it's worth my effort telling you the answer since you don't even understand your own question.

Of course there are people that don't understand science or logic, and that is why I have spent the last 5-10 posts in this thread explaining what I am talking about. Still don't get it? I'm only left with the option that you aren't up to debating this topic.

So considering all of the above, it should be pretty clear what I'd do for someone who don't know about wikipedia, science or logic. I'd do the very same - I'd explain it but I wouldn't tell them everything.

Either you aren't reading my posts before replying or don't understand them.

Also the evolution of man is not evidence for or against a god. It is a red-herring fallacy. If you want to debate evolutionary theory go here:

150 Years of Darwin

[TrueReligion]

That one I already answered. I said they evolved.
Then you asked "BY themselves? or by chance?"
that question is a false dichotomy. it presents only two possible answers, when there are more than two possibilities. Also both of the possible answers provided are wrong.
Humans evolved through a process of mutation and natural selection. nowe did not evolve from chipmunks, that is another logical fallacy(a strawman)

All the reasons you are giving my friend, is leading to 1 way, what was the 1st initial living being on earth, is this ok with you?

I'm done addressing this red herring(and another logical fallacy, by the way).

Seriously. it is time for you to address my challenges to your claims from several pages ago in post 81.

This is not right, I should say also that I'am not going to waste my time on all those arguments.

Then why did you make those arguments to begin with? do you retract your original claims?[/quote]

I didnt took back my original claim, My claim is that this universe is created by God, and humans are created by God, this is my claim,and the article also I paste, is the same reflection of my claim.
Now as you are opposing this claim, which means you are denying God, so we have to discuss.,you show me how humans start on earth, and we wil progress with this debate. If you say that you dont want to waste time in this discussion, this simply means you dont have an answer to this.
So the conclusion is obvious, that Universe is created by God. simple ...

[TrueReligion]

No it's quite clear you don't understand it - you are still using this false dichotomy of chance versus intentional evolution on the side of the animal itself. Both are wrong therefore it is a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or question. And until you understand this I don't expect anyone will answer your question.

I;am sorry, we are 2 minds here, I;am making it simple for you, still you are going in harder ways.

Suppose, 1 normal man, who dont know wikipedia, or science, or your logic or argument of how human came. The person have 1 answer, God made human. Now how can you tell that person? you will continously say he is giving false dichotomy? he will just ask what the hell is this.
And sorry to say, I got atleast some answer from Mcllouch, but till now you failed to answer anything.

Consider my previous posts on this subject and reconsider your position. I have done everything within my power to explain to you why you are incorrect but you continue to not understand. But even after this, I still expect some leg-work on the debate topics from my opponent. I will not give you the answers but I have explained on how to get them. Can this be wilful ignorance? I am here to debate, not to lay out explanations on a platter.

I have told you that your question is a false dichotomy, I have explained what a false-dichotomy is (as has FinalEnigma) with reference to a definition, I have pointed you towards a Wikipedia article on this very topic, I have in fact answered the question:

Post 106

To answer your question: NEITHER.

So if you don't get it after all this time I'm left wondering if it's worth my effort telling you the answer since you don't even understand your own question.

Of course there are people that don't understand science or logic, and that is why I have spent the last 5-10 posts in this thread explaining what I am talking about. Still don't get it? I'm only left with the option that you aren't up to debating this topic.

So considering all of the above, it should be pretty clear what I'd do for someone who don't know about wikipedia, science or logic. I'd do the very same - I'd explain it but I wouldn't tell them everything.

Either you aren't reading my posts before replying or don't understand them.

Also the evolution of man is not evidence for or against a god. It is a red-herring fallacy. If you want to debate evolutionary theory go here:

150 Years of Darwin

I dont think we are getting anywhere near, all you have given me, Ive read more than this in depth. All these articles are giving multiple choices of human start on earth, (by human you can take with any life ). So how can it be possible.
I made it very simple to you, that a normal person thinks that God made humans, and God started life on earth. Leave all your false dichotomy behind etc etc, how can you explain him in simple words,if you are denying God.

[FinalEnigma]

That one I already answered. I said they evolved.
Then you asked "BY themselves? or by chance?"
that question is a false dichotomy. it presents only two possible answers, when there are more than two possibilities. Also both of the possible answers provided are wrong.
Humans evolved through a process of mutation and natural selection. nowe did not evolve from chipmunks, that is another logical fallacy(a strawman)

All the reasons you are giving my friend, is leading to 1 way, what was the 1st initial living being on earth, is this ok with you?

I'm done addressing this red herring(and another logical fallacy, by the way).

Seriously. it is time for you to address my challenges to your claims from several pages ago in post 81.

This is not right, I should say also that I'am not going to waste my time on all those arguments.

Then why did you make those arguments to begin with? do you retract your original claims?

I didnt took back my original claim, My claim is that this universe is created by God, and humans are created by God, this is my claim,and the article also I paste, is the same reflection of my claim.
Now as you are opposing this claim, which means you are denying God, so we have to discuss.,you show me how humans start on earth, and we wil progress with this debate. If you say that you dont want to waste time in this discussion, this simply means you dont have an answer to this.
So the conclusion is obvious, that Universe is created by God. simple ...

I challenged your article. I never said God does not exist, nor would I, becasue that would be an impossible position to defend. so once again, do you admit that all these following claims of yours are nonsense? or do you wish to refute my arguments?

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF GOD

According to Oxford dictionary science is a branch of knowledge requiring systematic study and method, esp. dealing with substances, life, and natural laws. So science categorizes everything, which exists as known, unknown and unknowable. Known is the science, unknown is that on which scientists work and will be known in due course of time and there is nothing such as unknowable in the field of science. According to the scientists there can’t be any mystery in this world and sooner or later the science has the capability to reveal that mystery by using scientific methods. The scientific community tries to create scientific temperament among the general masses by asking the people to inquire about everything that exists and asks them to reject those things which does not have RATIONAL explanation. Believe in what you can see (e.g. light), feel (e.g. your body) and hear (e.g. sound vibration).

To be more precise scientists assert that believe only on your senses, that which can be perceived by our senses is scientifically possible, is rational otherwise it is a myth and should be discarded as blind faith.

Should a scientist believe in God? The question, which have always baffled the scientific community and the common people. God cannot be perceived by our senses and till now there has been no scientific instrument, which can detect the presence of God in the cosmos. The common answer, which one generally gets from most of the people, is that Religion is FAITH and Science is REALITY.
One of my friend has no hesitation in accepting God, instead he minced no words in criticising the scientists who deny the existence of God. He did not believe in Big-Bang theory because according to him the theory cannot be proved experimentally. He believed in the existence of some supernatural power who controls everything .He justified his point by giving the example of Mother Teresa who healed one patient.

But the other friend of mine was not convinced. He was ready to accept GOD if God Himself comes and proves His existence. I love my mother because I can feel her and I do not love God because I can’t feel Him was his instant reply.

Most of the people irrespective of their religion are sure about one thing,
They have faith in God, though there is no scientific proof. They believed in God because many others believed.

Faith is to accept without inquiring, put trust without probing and acknowledge without prying. In other words Religion or accepting God or believing in some supernatural power is considered to be irrational which is based on some wild imagination. Is accepting God really irrational? Do science have the potential to explain everything that exists in the entire cosmos? Does science does not make any assumptions?

1) TIME-WHAT IS IT?
Though the reality of time, especially in the form of its effect on us is undeniable, time is one among the many fundamental truths of life that defy scientific definition. Be that as it may, we measure time by the movement of the cosmic bodies. As per current scientific understanding, one year is the time in which the earth completes one revolution around the sun. For an object orbiting continuously in a circular path, no point on the orbit can be considered special. So scientifically there’s nothing “New� when we celebrate the New Year; the earth is going to continue in its same old path! Moreover no one can see, feel, smell, taste and hear TIME i.e. we cannot perceive time with our senses, yet no one can deny its existence.

2) Mathematicians throughout the world work with an imaginary number, which is the square root of minus 1.Important branches of mathematics –for example, the theory of analytical function –, are based on this imaginary unit. Without the help of this branch of mathematics, various complex theories and problems cannot be solved. Thus the existence of this number cannot be denied, yet there is no experimental proof of its existence.

3) Another scientific theory that is beyond the limit of experimental science is
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle .In mathematical language, it is stated that the product of the uncertainties in the measured values of the position and momentum (product of mass and velocity) cannot be smaller than Plank’s constant. No existing experimental technique can prove this principle. However, scientists all over the world accept this statement as fact, knowing that the experimental proof is beyond their ability.

4) Similarly there is no scientific experiment to prove the Third Law Of Thermodynamics. This law as formulated by Planck, states that the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero degrees is equal to zero. Factually there is no means available for measuring directly the absolute entropies. Therefore the proof of this law is beyond the realm of experimental science.

And all this is irrelevant to God.

person A: X is true!
Person B: you can't prove that!
Person A indicates an irrelevant subject: you can't prove that either!
Person B: So? that doesn't prove your argument.

you cannot prove an argument by pointing to other, unrelated, unproven things(if we even agree that they are unproven).

That would be exactly like my claiming that flying spaghetti monster exists, then pointing at your entire above argument as evidence, because none of those things can be experimentally proven either.

Ready to hail the flying spaghetti monster?

PROOF OF GOD’S EXISTENCE.

Sir Isaac Newton had a small scale model of solar system which was placed on a table in his room .The model was perfectly designed and
Everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. When one of his friend show it he immediately inquired about the artisan who had made it so beautiful. Newton with all seriousness replied, the previous night some explosion took place in my house
And this solar system was formed. The friend was not at all amused. Finally Newton explained,� You refuse to believe that this puny contraption came about by chance and yet you are convinced that the great original, the actual solar system, of which this mechanism is only a model has come into being without either a designer or a maker. Now tell me, by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an absurd conclusion.

First of all, I highly, highly doubt the truth of that story. I can only find it reproduced on known to be biased or absurd creationist websites. Further, if this really had occurred, then the 'watchmaker' argument would have been made a lot earlier, and would have been the 'model solar system' argument. you don't seriously believe that creationists would have failed to use such an apparently effective argument(if it converted newton's unnamed atheist friend on the spot as it is claimed) in the many years before the watchmaker argument was formulated by paley.

Further, the watchmaker argument is demonstrably absurd. Rather than refute this and the following argument myself, however Ill save the wasted time:

The idea that a watch implies a watchmaker because a watch is too complicated a thing to have come into existence by itself. Accordingly, a universe implies a universe maker since a universe is too complicated a thing to have come into existence by itself. The problem is that if the universe is too complicated to have come into existence by itself than so would the universe maker be too complicated to have authored it's own existence or to have spontaneously emerged...The very premise of this argument is self-defeating. If the universe maker could have always existed or come into existence spontaneously than there is no reason to assume the universe itself could not have done the same. The conclusion that all complicated things require a maker but the maker, a more complicated thing, does not require a maker is a conclusion that negates its own premise.

That's just one reason why the argument is absurd.




Then you go into the lawmaker argument.

Obviously all these things are happening as per the laws of nature, but can there be any law without a lawmaker? The very presence of a law implies the presence of a lawmaker who imposes the law. Even a simple road sign that regulates traffic has an originator and a controller. What then of the great comprehensive laws that governs this entire universe? Such brilliantly conceived laws surely bear witness to a brilliant lawmaker.

which is also ridiculous:

1. The universe obeys certain natural laws.
2. All laws must have a lawmaker.
3. The lawmaker must be outside of those laws.
4. The lawmaker is God.

This set me to thinking: if we assume that natural laws are real then they have either always existed or they were created (by God according to the theist's argument).

If we suppose that the natural laws were eternal, then the above argument is not valid.

If we suppose that they were created, that would mean that they did not exist at some point. However, if the natural laws did not exist at that point, then there is nothing to stop a universe such as ours (complete with all our observable laws) to spontaneously appear out of nothing since the only reason we say that this cannot happen is because of those laws (e.g. conservation of matter, cause and effect etc). In that case, the natural laws will not necessary require a lawmaker and hence the argument fails.

[TrueReligion]

I challenged your article. I never said God does not exist, nor would I, becasue that would be an impossible position to defend. so once again, do you admit that all these following claims of yours are nonsense? or do you wish to refute my arguments?

If you are debating for existence of God, than your and mine view is same, than you should be debating with persons who deny God, rather than me.
What claims are you saying are non-sense? this claim that God created man?

And all this is irrelevant to God.

person A: X is true!
Person B: you can't prove that!
Person A indicates an irrelevant subject: you can't prove that either!
Person B: So? that doesn't prove your argument.

you cannot prove an argument by pointing to other, unrelated, unproven things(if we even agree that they are unproven).

That would be exactly like my claiming that flying spaghetti monster exists, then pointing at your entire above argument as evidence, because none of those things can be experimentally proven either.

Ready to hail the flying spaghetti monster?

But proving God's existence is different of proving your flying spaghetti, You can prove existence of God by various means, but flying spaghetti you can prove only if some person see in real.

First of all, I highly, highly doubt the truth of that story. I can only find it reproduced on known to be biased or absurd creationist websites. Further, if this really had occurred, then the 'watchmaker' argument would have been made a lot earlier, and would have been the 'model solar system' argument. you don't seriously believe that creationists would have failed to use such an apparently effective argument(if it converted newton's unnamed atheist friend on the spot as it is claimed) in the many years before the watchmaker argument was formulated by paley.

Further, the watchmaker argument is demonstrably absurd. Rather than refute this and the following argument myself, however Ill save the wasted time:

So you think all the story given of Newton and the solar scale model is fake and not true?

In the book: The Truth: God or evolution? Marshall and Sandra Hall describe an often quoted exchange between Newton and an atheist friend
http://creationwiki.org/Isaac_Newton,

That's just one reason why the argument is absurd.

The example is given of watch only to atheists, that if a watch, which has a complicated design, cannot come by itself, how can Universe come by itself, that sun rise and set at particular time, winter summer comes in scheduled time always etc etc and many other.
So where you are seeing the problem I can;t understand.

Then you go into the lawmaker argument.

[quote="True Religion]
Obviously all these things are happening as per the laws of nature, but can there be any law without a lawmaker? The very presence of a law implies the presence of a lawmaker who imposes the law. Even a simple road sign that regulates traffic has an originator and a controller. What then of the great comprehensive laws that governs this entire universe? Such brilliantly conceived laws surely bear witness to a brilliant lawmaker.
[/quote]

which is also ridiculous:

What problem you find in this law-maker argument? Do you deny that the laws are given to men by God? Can you please confirm this last statement, as I dont understand wat problem you see in this law-maker argument.

Now as Ive given reply to all your arguments, so I guess we are done here, because you are debating wrong person, if you believe in God, than we dont have to debate and argue, you should argue with atheists not with me.

[Scotracer]

No it's quite clear you don't understand it - you are still using this false dichotomy of chance versus intentional evolution on the side of the animal itself. Both are wrong therefore it is a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or question. And until you understand this I don't expect anyone will answer your question.

I;am sorry, we are 2 minds here, I;am making it simple for you, still you are going in harder ways.

Suppose, 1 normal man, who dont know wikipedia, or science, or your logic or argument of how human came. The person have 1 answer, God made human. Now how can you tell that person? you will continously say he is giving false dichotomy? he will just ask what the hell is this.
And sorry to say, I got atleast some answer from Mcllouch, but till now you failed to answer anything.

Consider my previous posts on this subject and reconsider your position. I have done everything within my power to explain to you why you are incorrect but you continue to not understand. But even after this, I still expect some leg-work on the debate topics from my opponent. I will not give you the answers but I have explained on how to get them. Can this be wilful ignorance? I am here to debate, not to lay out explanations on a platter.

I have told you that your question is a false dichotomy, I have explained what a false-dichotomy is (as has FinalEnigma) with reference to a definition, I have pointed you towards a Wikipedia article on this very topic, I have in fact answered the question:

Post 106

To answer your question: NEITHER.

So if you don't get it after all this time I'm left wondering if it's worth my effort telling you the answer since you don't even understand your own question.

Of course there are people that don't understand science or logic, and that is why I have spent the last 5-10 posts in this thread explaining what I am talking about. Still don't get it? I'm only left with the option that you aren't up to debating this topic.

So considering all of the above, it should be pretty clear what I'd do for someone who don't know about wikipedia, science or logic. I'd do the very same - I'd explain it but I wouldn't tell them everything.

Either you aren't reading my posts before replying or don't understand them.

Also the evolution of man is not evidence for or against a god. It is a red-herring fallacy. If you want to debate evolutionary theory go here:

150 Years of Darwin

I dont think we are getting anywhere near, all you have given me, Ive read more than this in depth. All these articles are giving multiple choices of human start on earth, (by human you can take with any life ). So how can it be possible.
I made it very simple to you, that a normal person thinks that God made humans, and God started life on earth. Leave all your false dichotomy behind etc etc, how can you explain him in simple words,if you are denying God.

Great! If you've read more than this you'll know why your question is wrong.

I am not telling you where humans (or other animals) came from with this, I am trying to show you that you are wrong in your question...and asking the right questions is vital not just in debate but in life.

And again, we are here to debate not educate. I expect any of my opponents to understand both sides of the argument (i.e. understand the biological processes involved).

Oh and I never said god doesn't exist, I just reject your claim that he does given that you offer no real physical evidence or logic for this. There is a difference between the two y'know.

Now if you rephrase your question, with all the knowledge I have given to you we may begin. I look forward to it.

[TrueReligion]

Great! If you've read more than this you'll know why your question is wrong.

I am not telling you where humans (or other animals) came from with this, I am trying to show you that you are wrong in your question...and asking the right questions is vital not just in debate but in life.

And again, we are here to debate not educate. I expect any of my opponents to understand both sides of the argument (i.e. understand the biological processes involved).

Oh and I never said god doesn't exist, I just reject your claim that he does given that you offer no real physical evidence or logic for this. There is a difference between the two y'know.

Now if you rephrase your question, with all the knowledge I have given to you we may begin. I look forward to it.

Wait wait please, you said that God exist, but you are not agreeing on the fact that God created humans? is it correct?