Simple, logical arguments to prove the existence of God

[Skavau]

You constantly insult Islam and Muslims and aren't given a mere slap on the wrist..

No I don't.

I wonder why when folks paint atheism for what it actually is and stands for without florid terms you get all uptight and unhappy?

That's not what you were doing. Here is the direct quotation:

"You must remember that atheists aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs."

You must believe me to be incredibly naive to assume you meant that as some form of factual analysis. You were using the term 'unevolved ape' to atheists in order to imply that we were mentally inferior, animalistic, barbaric, or possibly even in inhumane. You were not using it to describe the fact that most atheists generally accept the claims of the biological theory of evolution.

The context speaks volumes to that.

give me a break mac.. go cry to the atheists on the dawkins forums on your woes here.. I hardly pass a post there that refers to theists without an F word!

By all means, feel free to begin insulting people based on their beliefs. If the forum allows that, then that's fine. However, I would like to think that it doesn't.

 

[جوري]

No I don't.

Yes you do!

That's not what you were doing. Here is the direct quotation:

"You must remember that atheists aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs."

I stand by that comment, I acknowledged it, you don't need to re-quote I am aware of what I wrote and it is indeed what I believe of you as a lot!

You must believe me to be incredibly naive to assume you meant that as some form of factual analysis. You were using the term 'unevolved ape' to atheists in order to imply that we were mentally inferior, animalistic, barbaric, or possibly even in inhumane. You were not using it to describe the fact that most atheists generally accept the claims of the biological theory of evolution.

I don't assume you naive, that is exactly the notion I wanted you to be left with, because it is the truth.. I don't find the truth insulting anymore than you or others like you painting God and everything holy in the most absurd and vile light.. You are actually very lucky that you are painted by something you adhere to and not made up crap, like found on atheist forums.. for instance this:

Re: Creationists will eventually believe Evolution

by Blitzkrebs » Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:02 am
Actually I'm all for engineering the sea monster from Revelations, just to **** with their heads.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=108479

it is indeed amazing how un-evolved apes have such high ambitions, yet can't cure the common cold or teach their minds beyond condemnation!

The context speaks volumes to that.

Indeed-- and so does redundancy!

By all means, feel free to begin insulting people based on their beliefs. If the forum allows that, then that's fine. However, I would like to think that it doesn't.

This forum stands for truth.. and I will speak the truth unto death!

all the best.. and of course pls. enjoy your stay with us ;D

 

[Skavau]

Yes you do!

No I haven't. I suspect some of my comments may have caused offense. I can't help that. Irrespectively though: Please point me to a post of mine where you believe I have deliberately set out to insult, ridicule or degrade Muslims please.

I don't assume you naive, that is exactly the notion I wanted you to be left with, because it is the truth.. I don't find the truth insulting anymore than you or others like you painting God and everything holy in the most absurd and vile light.. You are actually very lucky that you are painted by something you adhere to and not made up crap, like found on atheist forums.. for instance this:

We're not talking about the RD forum, we're talking about on here.

Irrespectively, I've made my point. You're going to keep being evasive and pretend it wasn't a slur. That's fine.

 

[جوري]

No I haven't. I suspect some of my comments may have caused offense. I can't help that. Irrespectively though: Please point me to a post of mine where you believe I have deliberately set out to insult, ridicule or degrade Muslims please.

Yes you have and I am not here to pick up after you!

We're not talking about the RD forum, we're talking about on here.

No, we are talking about the atheist credo in general and whether you feign to be civilized here or there, it really doesn't show.. indeed how I described you collectively in my summed up previous post is an adequate representation!

Irrespectively, I've made my point. You're going to keep being evasive and pretend it wasn't a slur. That's fine.

How am I evasive? I have taken full credit for what I have written and I fully stand by it.. perhaps the directness of that isn't registering with you, but I assure you there is no evasion in that!


all the best!

 

[Skavau]

Yes you have and I am not here to pick up after you!

So you now assume to know my motives but can't (or won't) reference any post?

Oh the arrogance.

How am I evasive? I have taken full credit for what I have written and I fully stand by it.. perhaps the directness of that isn't registering with you, but I assure you there is no evasion in that!

You have taken credit for it, yes. You offer half-baked rationals as to why you don't deem it an insult. The matter of fact is though, and as I said if you were to substitute 'atheist' for 'muslim' in your post, the moderators would rightly deem it as an insult and propose infractions.

The same is if you replaced 'atheist' for an ethnicity.

 

[جوري]

So you now assume to know my motives but can't (or won't) reference any post?

Oh the arrogance.

what motives can you possibly have being here?

You have taken credit for it, yes. You offer half-baked rationals as to why you don't deem it an insult. The matter of fact is though, and as I said if you were to substitute 'atheist' for 'muslim' in your post, the moderators would rightly deem it as an insult and propose infractions.

I have acknowledged it and I find it truthful.. I don't think you can substitute another category in this front simply because said description isn't applicable to Muslims but atheists!

The same is if you replaced 'atheist' for an ethnicity.

No, only atheists really.. most folks believe that God is responsible for their creation in the best form and adhere to some moral code of conduct that is refined and universally agreed upon and isn't concocted to suit lowly desires!


all the best

 

[Sampharo]

Really? What statistics have you been reading? Almost all census or population statistics on trends in religious adherence suggest that irreligion, non-belief and atheism in general are on a consistent rise.

This is specifically true in many parts of Europe where Atheism, or at least non-religion in general could actually be a majority. I suggest you also click here.

Precisely my point again about mis-direction. Just because athiests in North America and Europe (that are collectively less than 20% of the World) are on the rise because of the corrupting society, or because like I explained, it is more appropriate to write "non-belief" or "unreligious" than say "muslim" who may get linched next time there is a hate wave, does not mean they represent any significant percentage in the rest of the World where they are actually practically non-existent. There are less than 3% athiests in India and rest of Asia who command more than 40% of the global population, and they are extremely low elsewhere in Africa or the Middle East.

The population of the USA, I think until very recently had labelled atheists as their least trusted minority.

Rightful label without any doubt, but still, hate crime is leading against jews and muslims, not athiests. So they choose "non-religious" or "other" on census forms to escape headaches. That is what I said about you trying to add the group "non-religious" to the pot you label athiest, just to show increase in number.

And still, the total global census of all labelled "other", "non-religious", "agnostic", are still around 9%, which even if added to athiests will be 16% in total. You're still short on your crazy claims.

This is a good indicative number from ARIS which has collated estimates from all over the World:

"Most current estimates of the world number of secular/nonreligious/agnostic/atheist/etc. are between 800 and 1 billion.

Estimates for atheism alone (as a primary religious preference) range from 200 to 240 million."

Simple math shows that athiesm then accounts for less than 5% according to estimates which have an error margin less than 2%.

Solidarity? I am speaking to you, on behalf of no-one else about some of the bigoted comments you made.

I don't believe, in my time on here, I've seen any atheist come onto the forum and fabricate Islamic scripture......

.

.

.

How is lacking a belief in any sense of the word the same as a belief? Doesn't that claim completely null the meaning of the word unbelief?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Certainly nothing that I said.

You actually think that after that "professional disbeliever" announcement, I would even be remotely interested in continuing a debate with you on the subject?

You're not really trying very hard to dispel the thoughts about athiests being self-contradicting, feeble-minded, and like Skye said "aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs."

 

[Danah]

I would be shocked if I died and went to some sort of afterlife. I would be double shocked if there was a God. I would be triple shocked if that God was one of the ones people here on earth advocate for. But I do not claim it would be impossible. Just extremely unlikely (invisible aliens may be standing next to me right now too).

Thanks for the honest answer...

That said, if I did appear before a God that judged me as deserving of punishment for not believing in him (rather than say for killing people or something) I would not respect that sort of tyrant God and would stand against him anyway.

Well you have a chance to disrespect such God then? or even have the choice to decided what to do? Do you think it will be too late to realize that in such time?
How you will go against such god when you know that you are nothing but a human?

Look at it from your own perspective. I doubt you hold the truth-claims of Sikhism or Taoism to much importance. I doubt that the claims of Judaism or Scientology mean much to you, nor either the prospect that what if they are true?


Ultimately, if you are sincere and realistic you can only shape your life on what you hold to be true and valuable. You hold Islam to be true and valuable and as of such the claims of its divinity make sense to you and need to be observed. An atheist does not share these views. I have no reason from my perspective to fear the prospect of a judgment by Allah in an afterlife anymore than I do the judgment of Yahweh.

I am not speaking from an Islamic view....it was just a general simple question about what you will do if you know the truth about God existence. I am looking for a simple answer like what Pygoscelis posted. What will you do?

Questions like these often asked make no coherent sense because they assume implicitly that belief is arbitrary. People can only act sincerely.

So you have no answer?
Then why you quoted me in the first place?

 

[Uthman]

Members, please bear this rule in mind when you're posting:

Beef will not be tolerated in any forum. Differences in opinion are expected, but please debate respectfully. (Beef are comments made for the purpose of insulting somebody else with negative intent, looking for a negative reaction, or blatantly insulting somebody)
​

The rule applies to everybody, irrespective of whether you're right or wrong in this debate.

 

[Skavau]

Precisely my point again about mis-direction. Just because athiests in North America and Europe (that are collectively less than 20% of the World) are on the rise because of the corrupting society, or because like I explained, it is more appropriate to write "non-belief" or "unreligious" than say "muslim" who may get linched

This is nothing more than paranoia. In the deep south, being both a Muslim or an Atheist is unpopular. Until recently, as I have supported it was actually worse to be an Atheist in the Bible Belt.

Regardless, poll-takers do not advertise who filled out their results and if government ones definitely do not. You have no evidence that there are millions of closet muslims scared to put 'muslim' as their religious preference due to reprisal. You also have no evidence that these alleged muslims put atheist instead (especially if you're interested in safety it would be better to put christian).

does not mean they represent any significant percentage in the rest of the World where they are actually practically non-existent. There are less than 3% athiests in India and rest of Asia who command more than 40% of the global population, and they are extremely low elsewhere in Africa or the Middle East.

Oh absolutely. But this is amusingly ironic.

In states like Saudi Arabia it is extremely unhealthy to come out as anything other than a Muslim, Christian or Jew. Saudi Arabia is not very well known for its religious tolerance and indeed many of the petty dictatorships run into the ground also do not have much tolerance for anything other than a specific sect of Christianity. In fact, you're talking about states where Animism is still a significant minority. You're talking about states where there exists no possible or viable census. We in actuality have no real idea how many atheists are in Africa due to poverty and repression.

Now, if we talk about one of the few Asian countries we do actually know about we learn that Japan does have a significant population of atheists.

Rightful label without any doubt, but still, hate crime is leading against jews and muslims, not athiests.

It is a bigoted label which has been helped by the new fundamentalist movement in the United States. The propertiers and preachers of the mega churches. It is not much backed up with any form of solid evidence of any sort at all. Observe this link.

And still, the total global census of all labelled "other", "non-religious", "agnostic", are still around 9%, which even if added to athiests will be 16% in total. You're still short on your crazy claims.

That does not bother me. The amount of non-religious, secular, humanistic, atheistic, agnostic arguably make up to 20% of the global population.

You actually think that after that "professional disbeliever" announcement, I would even be remotely interested in continuing a debate with you on the subject?

I never used the term 'professional disbeliever'.

You're not really trying very hard to dispel the thoughts about athiests being self-contradicting, feeble-minded, and like Skye said "aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs."

I refer you to what Uthman recently said.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Skavau, you need to learn not to feed the trolls. They are only here to express hate for their outgroup, and derail the conversation from the OP and those who actually wish intelligent discussion. Ignore them and you'll see less of these threads derailed into childishness and closed.

Danah, to answer your respectful questions:

Well you have a chance to disrespect such God then? or even have the choice to decided what to do? Do you think it will be too late to realize that in such time?
How you will go against such god when you know that you are nothing but a human?

Well, as I don't believe any gods exist, this is all hypothetical so I really don't know if I'd have my free will taken away or not. But if I could display my disrespect for an evil God (such as one that would punish people for not believing in him or do the other evil things the judeochristian god is said to do) I would feel it my moral obligation to do so. I'd feel that if I did otherwise I'd be endorsing evil, and would ironically then truly deserve punishment.

I sometimes hear people respond to my view on this with "you can't judge God, puny human". But are they not judging God by declaring him "good" and deciding to obey him rather than oppose him? If God is all powerful then I hold him to a very high standard, because with power comes responsibility, with great power comes great responsibility, and with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.

As for other conceptions of Gods (maybe kinder gods exist, who care more about how we treat our fellow humans than what we believe about the afterlife), I'd probably be ok with them. And as for impersonal god-like forces, such as Tao, I actually think many of them are pretty cool concepts, I just don't believe them to be true.

 

[Skavau]

I am not speaking from an Islamic view....it was just a general simple question about what you will do if you know the truth about God existence. I am looking for a simple answer like what Pygoscelis posted. What will you do?

I understand you weren't speaking from the Islamic perspective - but my answer took the form of reversing the question. I could ask what would you do if it happens that Christianity is correct, and you come face to face with Yahweh? What would you do?

All I could do is say (if Allah was real, or if any God with a 'judgment' was real) that I was mistaken. I would offer no apologies and no worship, only sincerity. If that God would decree me to hell purely on the basis of ill-judgment, then I would not consider such a God worthy of worship.

But as I asked: What would you yourself do if it turned out another God was true? I suspect your answer may take a similar form to what I might do if Allah was true.

So you have no answer?
Then why you quoted me in the first place?

I do have an answer. I gave it above. I responded specifically in the original response with why I don't think its an entirely prudent question.

 

[Alpha Dude]

Deceptive argument.

We actually have no idea if the universe is eternal or not (the Big Bang does not describe the beginning of the universe, rather just the universe as we now understand it). This argument is nothing more than speculation.

Irrespectively, the exact same logic can be applied to a God.

The cosmological argument is sound, because it satisfactorily answers the question about the origin of the universe and the reality of the world and proves the existence of a 'First Cause' or Creator.

The validity and soundness of a logical argument depends on the structure of the argument and the soundness of its premises, all of which are met here.

That very proof results in the conclusion which establishes that the first cause is (necessarily) uncaused, hence to ask about its cause is fallacious.

A slight variation of the kalam cosmological argument:

1. Everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite
2. Everything that is limited and finite is dependent
3. The universe is the sum of limited finite things and is therefore limited and dependent
4. Because infinite regression cannot exist, then everything ultimately depends upon an independent, unlimited being who created everything.

Everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite. Everything that is limited and finite is dependent on something.

For example, a computer depends upon electricity and electricity depends upon a power station which has a magnet rotating in a metal coil. The rotation of the magnet requires the turbines to spin the magnet, the turbines spin because of the steam produced by the water boiling. The heat is produced by the coal burning and the coal required decay of wood under pressure, the wood required sunlight to produce photosynthesis in converting carbon dioxide into wood, and so on. Thus we see that everything which is limited depends upon something else limited.

The question may arise, does this series of inter-dependent things go on for infinity or does it stop somewhere?

If it did carry on for infinity, we would not exist now. Infinite regression is an impossibility, it must stop with a first cause i.e. something independent.

For this thing to be independent, it must be other than what is dependent i.e. not be limited and finite. Therefore it is unlimited and infinite as well as independent.

 

[Skavau]

The cosmological argument is sound, because it satisfactorily answers the question about the origin of the universe and the reality of the world and proves the existence of a 'First Cause' or Creator

To accept the claims of the Cosmological argument you have to assume that the universe at one point, came to being. You have to assume that we know for certain that an illusive 'first cause' of some sort preceded it all. In actuality, we don't have that sort of knowledge. Even if we were to discover that the Big Bang was in fact specifically caused by a force, or a being - we would have no knowledge on the makeup of this being, or the constitutents of the force. It is, when you strip down the pseudo-philosophical foundation an appeal to ignorance. A statement that because we don't know, a divine being or force must have done it.

That very proof results in the conclusion which establishes that the first cause is (necessarily) uncaused, hence to ask about its cause is fallacious.

That, sir, is what is referred to as a selective choice of principles. You declare that oh, well, perhaps the universe needs an external mover. Perhaps the universe required a first cause in order to jumpstart it. However, the causer of this? No, he does not require it. No reason is given for this. You simply decree that the 'first cause' (a claim not substantiated at this point, only asserted) was 'uncaused'.

A slight variation of the kalam cosmological argument:

1. Everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite
2. Everything that is limited and finite is dependent
3. The universe is the sum of limited finite things and is therefore limited and dependent
4. Because infinite regression cannot exist, then everything ultimately depends upon an independent, unlimited being who created everything.

Yes I know the variation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The conclusion in this little syllogism is a massive jump from the other claims. It has not established and assumes we absolutely know that infinite regression cannot exist. Indeed for your position to be consistent you already believe in an infinite being. Did you not just say that you already accept that an 'uncaused first cause' exists? Would that not, for all intents of purposes be an infinite being?

So for all intents of purpose, you already reject the claim that infinite regression is not possible. You simply invoke a God that you decree is beyond rational inquiry, empirical evidence, beyond our understanding and then position it as the absolute infinite. It is passively disingenuous.

Also, to be specific this argument makes a glaringly simple logical error (fallacy). It commits the fallacy of composition. Click here about it.

For example, a computer depends upon electricity and electricity depends upon a power station which has a magnet rotating in a metal coil. The rotation of the magnet requires the turbines to spin the magnet, the turbines spin because of the steam produced by the water boiling. The heat is produced by the coal burning and the coal required decay of wood under pressure, the wood required sunlight to produce photosynthesis in converting carbon dioxide into wood, and so on. Thus we see that everything which is limited depends upon something else limited.

The question may arise, does this series of inter-dependent things go on for infinity or does it stop somewhere?

We don't know.

If it did carry on for infinity, we would not exist now. Infinite regression is an impossibility, it must stop with a first cause i.e. something independent.

For this thing to be independent, it must be other than what is dependent i.e. not be limited and finite. Therefore it is unlimited and infinite as well as independent.

As I said, you don't disagree with infinity.

 

[barney]

Not to labour the point, but if someone had come up with a logical arguement for god that was simple and clear, then there wouldnt be 22000 different religions. There would be one easy to access understandable god and no atheists.

The corelation between intelligence and Atheism is worth consideration in this question.

 

[جوري]

The corelation between intelligence and Atheism is worth consideration in this question.

A paradox and a universal negative unfortunately!

as for homogeneity in philosophies and thoughts.. will I guess only an atheist can come up with something that sterile and expects it to magically hold its place amidst 'common sense!'

 

[Danah]

Thanks Pygoscelis for your further explanation.
Skavau,thanks for finally answering the question .

I just wanted to know how you guys think about it.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Not to labour the point, but if someone had come up with a logical arguement for god that was simple and clear, then there wouldnt be 22000 different religions. There would be one easy to access understandable god and no atheists.

The corelation between intelligence and Atheism is worth consideration in this question.

Where is the evidence of this intelligence?

I was on the med forums the other day and a med school student had the audacity to call Hitchens an "intellectual" and to prove that he gave me a website of magazine which surveyed people to vote intellectuals. ;D Ayaan Hirsi Ali was also in it. Way to go, INTELLECTUALS!!

 

[جوري]

Where is the evidence of this intelligence?
!

Not expending any effort to understand or at least concede to the splendor in the creation of man or the universe or remotely offer an level-headed reproducible scientific alternative = intelligence, or haven't you heard?..

welcome to the 21st C. where everything is topsy-turvy..
giant bodies possessing bird brains!

 

[barney]

Where is the evidence of this intelligence?

I was on the med forums the other day and a med school student had the audacity to call Hitchens an "intellectual" and to prove that he gave me a website of magazine which surveyed people to vote intellectuals. ;D Ayaan Hirsi Ali was also in it. Way to go, INTELLECTUALS!!

this is just one of many studies. They all show that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to beleive in god.
I could pull out a chart to show that the warmer the climate the lower the number of Pirates, but in this case the evidence is substantial.

Oh and Hitch is undoubtadly a massive intellectual. He's a drunk and a chainsmoker and he certainly can turn a phrase to upset the cherished beleifs of others, but Intellectual he remains at 27 in the top 100, a few points behind Dawkins