OP: Better minds than yours or mine have been debating the existence of a supreme being for millennia. Not one of those minds has come up with a single shred of evidence for said existence. The odds against you coming up with a “proof” are . . . astronomical.
It’s so funny to see someone proposing that logic dictates that life is too complex to have come into being by itself so it must have been created by something else that came into being by itself. You honestly can’t see the flaw in that argument?
But – but – I’m trying to get you to FIX my car. If I have to walk away from here, there’s no way I’m gonna be happy.
Truth in advertising … SDMB is kinda sensitive about that …
You’re all over the map. First you’re trying out the old uncaused first cause argument, then you talk about how you were mad at God, then you go straight into Creationism.
What’s your focus here? To address your main points, an uncaused first cause isn’t much like Jesus. It just says that our Universe exists, and labels the cause of the existence of the Universe “God”. But we know nothing about why our Universe exists, and naming the cause of that existence “God” is, as you know, a sneaky attempt to ascribe personhood to what could very well be impersonal forces. Since we have no idea why the Universe exists giving the cause of the universe a name besides “the cause of the Universe” assumes what it is trying to prove.
As for your talk about how you hated God after your mother died, that’s a pretty tough story. But you should know that most atheists don’t hate God, we just don’t think that there’s any evidence that a being that would be justified in called “God” exists. I mean, maybe God exists, but why should I think so? I don’t feel justified in calling the Universe “God”, or an uncaused first cause “God” or the sum total of the physical laws of the Universe “God”, or the creator of the human species “God”. I’m an atheist because I either don’t believe those things exist, or I don’t believe they can justly be called “God”. And I’m not mad at God for all the evil in the world, any more than I’m mad at Darth Vader for blowing up Princess Leia’s planet, or mad hurricane Katrina. There’s no point in getting angry at impersonal forces or fictional characters. Also there’s no point in getting angry at people who did bad things that are now dead, like Genghis Khan. Yeah, he was a horrible person who caused millions of deaths. But what’s the point of getting mad at Genghis Khan? He’s been dead for hundreds of years. And what’s the point of getting angry at other jerks, like Donald Trump? He’s alive, and doing evil in the world…but what’s the point of being angry at him?
God didn’t give your mother cancer. She got cancer because something damaged the DNA in one of her cells, and that caused the cell to divide uncontrollably. Your mother wasn’t killed by a personal being, she was killed by an impersonal force. Anger at an impersonal force is wrongheaded.
As for Creationism…well I hardly know where to begin. Yeah, it’s extremely unlikely that a bunch of carbon and hydrogen and oxygen atoms would spontaneously combine into a human being at random. And that’s why I don’t think human beings arose at random. Evolution is not random. But are we even talking about evolution, or are we talking about the origin of life? Are you incapable of believing that the first living cell arose by impersonal forces billions of years ago? Or are you arguing for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?
Yep. As somebody else already posted in this thread, “It’s Creators all the way down.”
If we grant the op’s premise that there has to be an all powerful being at the beginning, why does that mean it’s our creator? Maybe that being spawned more beings (perhaps through mitosis, or maybe it was created pregnant, akin to a tribble), who spawned more beings, and so on and so on, and after billions of generations before one of those beings died it created this universe (or perhaps just this little corner of the universe that was created by another being). Because there’s simply so much to do as an all-powerful being none of the others noticed as they’re just too busy, and as a consequence we’ve been adrift in the cosmos for billions of years all on our own and life arose through abiogenesis, with evolution leading us to where we are today.
Looking forward to the op explaining why this has to be discounted in favor of his religion and it’s single creator.
Aw, who am I kidding. I don’t expect him to do anything but post more walls of text that ignore all the objections put forth.
Haven’t seen anything like that. Now, I have seen people on Buddha’s toe:
From: The Spring Temple giant Buddha statue
http://www.nevworldwonders.com/2012/04/day-214-pingdingshan-and-spring-temple.html
God is like a pirate/plagiarist, taking credit for something it just stumbled across? Of course, some of us are of the opinion that the natural order of things led nothing to become something, because it had to, so this god critter would be stealing credit from nothing.
Maybe. I predict one or two more missives from him/her, and then gone.
Considering the OP has already laid out their lame excuse to never come back … I’ll go ahead and predict they’ll … you know … never come back …
Don’t taunt. You may be right, but it’s undignified to taunt.
Everybody should just stop posting in the thread – not like we had written anything original anyway – let it sink and see if it pops up again by the end of the week or just quietly dies.
Bump for Jesus!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But this God goes to 11!
The bible actually seems counter productive to proving the existence of God, the more you read it, the more ridiculous it becomes.
Your example that 2+2=4 is a poor one since it doesn’t address attack the fundamental ideas in math. A better question would be “Is the Axiom of Choice always true?” Godel’s Impossibility Theorem counters your assumption that the laws of mathematics are consistent in that any complete axiomonic system will have statement that can neither be proven true or false.
As for the term “Aristotelian”, it is the form of logic that the Western world uses. However there are many types of logic out there which use different rules. Now I am not a quantum physicist so this may be wrong but there are particles that simultaneously exist and do not exist. This violates Aristotle’s Rule of the Excluded Middle but I believe does not violate the rules of Fuzzy Logic.
So these two put put together would deny your antecedent(s) and render you chain of reasoning invalid.
My last reply was a bit snarky, and I know I should probably let this thread die, but I thought this was useful.
Crash Course Philosophy is a YouTube channel that covers the major areas of philosophy at a high school level. It’s very accessible, and several of the episodes cover the arguments for and against the existence of a god, without taking a position either way. I think it’s a useful series for anyone that is just starting to consider these kinds of questions.
Originally posted by Anselm of Canterbury in 1078 CE.