Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
Created on: September 7th, 2006
WARNING: My comments are NSFW. Please evaluate and vote based on the merits and quality of the YTMND not based on your religious standpoint. If you have an objection, post below and I will address it in the YTMND at the end.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| GendoIkari | $19.12 | Peterguy | $9.41 |
| stewie | $9.41 | ||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $37.94 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2.95) | 2,637 | 228 | 2,543 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 57,567 |
Inbound links:
I've learned all those things in Philosophy class. While you do bring up a good point, you still do not answer whether or not it's God. You can propose it was something with certain characterisitcs all you like, but that doesn't mean it's true. Although God may exist, it's possible he does not hold all of the characteristics you proposed. For example, he may be omnipotent (which would allow him to create the universe), but he may not be omniscient and/or omnibenevolent.
"The truth of the matter is that there is NO truth when it comes to proving
the existence of God. Therefore, no one can claim that God does or does
NOT exist. The concept of God, created in the mind, is only a CONCEPT and
CANNOT -- as Kant argued -- manifest itself into a tangible idea. We can
also see that the Bible is NOT divine by examining its existential
symbolism."
QFT
You have essentially taken the argument "The universe exists therefore God did it" and attempted to dress it in scientific language. By using the term 'God' I assume you mean an omnipotent being with human-like sentience. You haven't been able to come close to proving that such a being exists, or that such a being is directly responsible for creating the universe. Such unreasoned arguments threaten my ability to remain an agnostic...
-4'd for the following objections. 1) Your first premise is everything has a sufficient cause, therefore what is the sufficient cause of the existence of the first cause. If you say that is a moot point, then there is no reason to assume that the universe itself had to have a cause, and thus could have caused itself. 2) You assert that intelligence cannot come from non intelligence, which needs mountains of proof, and you provide none. 3) You assert that life cannot come from non-life, which ....
String theory already coughed up a cause for our universe. Also, you're presumption that life can only arise from life is flawed. Furthermore, there is solid proof we evolved from apes, a less intelligent "Inferior" life form. Though apes have 24 chromosones and humans have 23, it's because a pair of ape chromosones fused at some point in the past. In the human genome, it's been found to be Chromosone #2
I'm giving you a 5. I like it when people attempt to prove something so controversial (forgive my spelling). Now I get to add my two-sense :D. Here's the problem that lies in your logic (at least from what I can manafest). In your logic, you dictate that God is living and also say that something can't come from nothing. Unfortunantly, this logic also has to follow in the beliefes that God does exist. It's like this, God came from nothing, and God made something. This has already been disproven by Aristotle.
SabinsAura, the problem lies in the fact that God did not come from nothing, he just always has been. He is not bound by time and rules like we are; for he made them. But think about it, you make something, anything, say a YTMND. Does that page control you? No. You have control over that site to change it, tweak it, even delete it if you wish. So why would God be bound by time if time did not exist before God created it? It's hard to imagine, I know, but think about it. God did not come from nothing
Your premises that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence and that life cannot come from non-life are not backed up in any substantial way. "Because it sounds good" isn't a way to prove something.
I'll grant you that the cause of the universe has to be considered powerful, but it does not necessarily need to be sentient or alive.
Lol, attempts at serios on ytmnd. (Or the internets at all)
Why do you assume that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence? Just look at the frequency of genius kids being born, who are far more intelligent than either of their parents. There is no reason why humanity could not have evolved to be more intelligent than it initially was and that it came to exist from a less intelligent species.
f*ck right the hell off. 'causality' - pffft, so what created God then? Super-God? Where's Super Gods bible? who created Super-God? Super-Duper-God? I've never said outright that the existence of God is impossible, but its massively arrogant to think we pathetic little humans figured it out. Its one stretch to say God exists, its another to say its the God of the Bible and that it actually gives a sh*t about any of his creations, or that theres an afterlife.
Your premise breaks down when you consider that the Universe had a definite beginning. "Causality" is a trait of the Universe. It exists as a law specificaly in this Universe. Anyhing "before" the Universe, ie that which preceeded its creation, are not required to follow Causality, since it is a law of a Universe not yet in existence. Thus, the creation of this Universe does not necessarily follow causality. -2 for flawed logic. Good try though.
the God of the Bible is an invention of humans, and as such, has of course turned out to be an egomaniac with many truly sh*tty nonsensical laws like marrying your rapist, while letting women speak in church or wearing cotton/poly blends is much worse. the Bible is flat out RETARDED if you actually read it. Bottom line - if you think god exists because of science, go ahead and be a Deist, but Christianity? Islam? thats another huge f*cking leap, and a mind numbingly dumb one. Just say no.
On top of this, the peacefulness of hugely atheistic nations in Scandinavia compared to the warlike nature of Christian and Islamic and yes, Jewish nations, only goes to further prove to me that organized religion is neither relevant nor practical. most of you live in a nation where George H.W. Bush said that atheists do not DESERVE CITIZENSHIP. just say no to theocracy.
Nice try. The theory of evolution is not brought in to your argument, and you take for granted that knowledge cannot be caused by ignorance etc. However, the theory of evolution shows how relative "ignorance" can, over time, lead to relative "knowledge." Also, you didn't properly defend you stance against the "created god" objection. Your whole argument is based on the fact that everything had to have something cause it. If nothing caused god, or god caused him/her/itself, then the argument is unsound.
"the problem lies in the fact that God did not come from nothing, he just always has been." - yet you would not accept a statement that the universe has always just 'been', and that time is circular. sceintific theories get tested to see if any elements hold true (christians constantly mischaracterize the Big Bang, even though I myself am not convinced either)... Faith is just gullibility. if you think god has always 'just been' whats stopping you from believing atheists are the manifestation of Satan?
I have to give you credit for putting a lot of time and actual thought into this, instead of just resorting to some lame excuse like you said. However, I still don't think it explains much of anything, since what's the causality for the creation of God? Can God just "exist" from nothing and no creation? Wouldn't that shoot down the whole causality argument?
4'd. Nice job =)
(Constructive criticism)
1. The idea of a first cause is all well and good. And ( i know you didn't but...) It doesnt prove that there is 1 and not many. More specifically, its not an indication of which. And therefore has no following belief system to subscribe to. If there is a god, is he evil/good, loose/strict, the same from the bible or another god never before interacted.
2. Events are not linear. Effects do not always have 1 cause be can be a result of many factors.
MS: "the peacefulness of hugely atheistic nations in Scandinavia
compared to the warlike nature of Christian and Islamic and yes, Jewish
nations, only goes to further prove to me that organized religion is
neither relevant nor practical." I'd much rather live in a nation where evil is confronted, not tolerated. Christianity +5
"Everything that comes to be has a sufficient prior cause." I don't understand why this doesn't apply to the "first cause," because this "first cause" would also have to have a sufficient prior cause. If anything, causality makes more sense, in a way, to be of a cyclical nature rather than a linear one.
First off, the UNIVERSE did indeed come to be, and I will get to what caused that later, but matter (1st law of thermodynamics) is eternal.
As for what caused the big bang to expand from the infinitely dense ball of matter, that gets into theoretical and quantum physics. Two p-branes colliding in 10 dimensional hyperspace would cause what is necessary to make the "bang" so as to allow the matter to expand to the present state our universe is in.
Now, you might say that God is eternal, but that is one, assuming a God exists, which you could very well say is what logically follows your premise you set up in your ytmnd that are based on the laws of causality...however, if matter is eternal, and this is evidenced by a law of science, then we know that is what is eternal. Even if you were to go further with this, you can apply Occams razor.
god is probably not even anything like a person, its probably some kind of energy force that just randomly spawned us as a by product and doesnt give 1% of a f*ck about what happens to us or even our planet or galaxy - keep praying to it though haha it has a crazy paradise place that can hold billions and billions of people you've never met before but if you're bad there is a horrifying fire jail that you land in along with tons of other motherf*ckers and then you stay there forever (long time)
PREMISE 1.) Matter has always existed, and is
PREMISE 2.) An infinitely complex being, that is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, has existed forever
Premise 1 is simpler, and according to Occams razor, premise 1 would most likely be the correct answer.
I might also add that the laws of causality do not always apply, they are broken in quantum physics experiments in which quarks, among other things, appear to pop in and out of existance - causeless.
Just as newton's laws of gravity apply only in certain circumstances, such as here on earth and under only certain "non-extreme" conditions, so to do the laws of causality function in this way. So, we need to come up with something else to explain how it works in those extreme conditions, just as Einsteins theory of relativity would replace Newton's laws under certain circumstances.
One of the things I hate most about Christianity is how most people become Christians before they even read the text... either born into it or just insta-converting after depression or getting off drugs or prison or ________. Do you have that much faith in your parents to make a supposedly eternal decision for you? To believe a book written in a time when people were even dumber than they are now?
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone hi
this ytmnd is proof to me that this site will never entertain me again. it was bad enough with the epidemic of overproduced short films flooding the top viewed sites, but i always took comfort in the fact that at least a few users, though most of them retards, remembered that this site is supposed to be stupid and funny and random. when religious documentaries appear on the front page, that's when i leave. goodbye, ytmnd. i guess all cool things begin to suck eventually.
It's a good attempt, however it is a distortion of a few things. It's all well and good to use causality to ascribe purpose to things. It gives you hope. However, quantum physics suggests that time can be modeled equally well going forwards as backwards(mathematically speaking), and to the more miniscule versions of physics, the notion of causality is meaningless.
Your argument is sufficiently flawed. You managed to prove the universe had a begining, that's not the point. You never proved that it was created from a divine being. It could have been created by some other kind of phenomena just as easily. Anyone can make an argument based on some facts and then expand it into a crazy theory. For example: E=MC^2. Since God is infinitely powerful he must haveinfinite energy and therefore infinite mass. If he had infinite mass, the universe would be sucked into him.
As a quantum mechanics major myself, I find your conclusions to be incredibly nieve. Do you really think we've learned all there is to know in the realm of science? You're proposing that we do, and our lack of any other information pertaning to the perpetual state of the universes existense must obviously be the result of a 'god.'
A second misconception here is again with causality. This one goes back to the big bang. Your notion of causality is derived from the form "X preceds Y, and X is strongly related to Y therefor X caused Y". However modern physics suggests time is a limited circular dimension. Although it is not presently discernably finite, Time does(and "does" is the best word I can think of to describe it) not exist without the other dimensions for it to be projected accross.
I don't buy that that dissmissal of who created God. True the universe had a beginning and by your logical a necessary cause, but you just claim that God always existed in spite of the fact that there is no logic to support it. Something without a beginning? Explain that one to me, logically. BTW I am not a total atheist.
and "can intelligence come from non-intelligence?" you said no, it can't, without backing it up. Evolution is fact, ok? It's not really a theory anymore, take an anthro class. Humans did come from dumbass monkeys. maybe you ought to ask "can non-intelligence make a sh*tty ytmnd" and the answer is yes.
Looks like you arbitrarilly define the limits of these claims. Someone says "who created god" and you say that's where the causation begins. Why does it begin there? Because you say it does. Replace the word god with the big bang there. "Who created the big bang" maybe no one, because it was the "first cause." See how easy that was? I even followed your rules
The Law of Causality applies to within the universe or the "natural." What causes the universe, if it even has a cause, is supernatural and is not subject to the laws of the universe. We have no imperical laws for defining and describing the supernatural. I swear to god you guys are a bunch of straw grabbing idiots.
First off, why doe we keep having these stupid debates on a site that has Hitler signing happy cake songs?
Second: It's easy as f#ck to classify that omnipotent being that created the universe as God. Almost as easy as saying, why don't we sacrifice a child to Ba'al so it rains (it has to rain eventually right?).
Third: STFU and give me more Hitler happy cake ytmnds.....
lame
See, now that's the bad part about this argument. It uses terminology people do not comprehend, and if people quit because they can't comprehend it, then there is no resolution to the argument, because you get something stupid like "LOL UR DUMB". F*ck the downvoters, you sir, are wildly intelligent, and deserve to be exalted in today's world.
I'll give you a three for great effort. Still, this does not prove God exists. In fact, why does it have to be a singular God...why not many? You also would then have to touch upon God always being existant which in itself is a paradox. Also, you are applying temporal views of human rational to explain causes which in itself can only explain natural occurences. So again, three for good effort.
The problem with this argument is that a higher being didn’t need to create life, intelligence, or things like that. Life was created from the evolution of the simplest forms of life like a virus (which frankly isn’t life because it is just some proteins and genetic information) to the complex creatures we have today. Intelligence was created the same way, evolving from bacteria just looking for a way to divide to professors at Cambridge teaching string theory.
There may well be a God, but there is no way
Also, I find the fact that people try to approach the existence of God scientifically. You just can't do that. It's like trying to scientifically prove the Easter Bunny is real. Scientific theories were not orchastrated with God in mind. Granted, some scientific theories sound silly. But is it any more silly than a man in the clouds snapping creation into reality?
we can definitively prove or disprove his existence. I’ve lost many night of sleep contemplating the existence of God and it has got me nowhere. We are not going to find the solution to this problem anytime soon, so instead of arguing about it we should just go on with our lives. If you have a personal faith in God, that is excellent. If you are atheist or agnostic, that is good too. Just keep an open mind.
I am giving you a 5 because this YTMND made me think.
Heartskullkid, btw, there are many ideas in many occult circles that, there are more gods than just Yahweh. In fact, the one that makes the most sense, is that Yahweh is the god of this plane, which is evident in how the Bible says that you will be given and new body and will not die. This implys that you do not move on to the "next plane" of other "gods", hence, people who worship other gods are not inherently false, yet they are not worshipping the one who had created them.
It's not the idea that there is an omnipotent "creator" that's silly. It's the image Christianity and most mainstream religions have created for God that is silly and, quite frankly, absurd. You can't just believe in a higher power, you have to force-feed it into the mouths of others. You have to tell people that if they do not share your faith, they are doomed to an eternal fire. None of you people KNOW God exists, you have FAITH he does. Essentially, you HOPE he exists.
Is god matter? Non-matter can not create matter. Unless you want to change your rules. If he was matter, he would not be the first clause. Similarily, he would have been crushed by the forces present at the first singularity of the universe.
On a different note, you have created a "First cause" for something that we do not yet understand. Examples come from earlier civilization. Early humans believed that Lightening was caused by god. It's fairly obvious that it's not. The idea is similar to that ofcreati
Whetstone, your argument for the existence of God is incredibly flawed. While your first three points seem valid and true, you make a false claim when you try to attribute those points to "God". You assume that in order for the universe to have come into existence it MUST come from something supernatural, aka God. You do not consider the possibility that the nature of the universe derives from natural forces that we have yet to discover or observe.
lol, I wish I could sic a servitor on you, it would be so fulfilling to have him come back to me with whoever's posting those comment's head...but alas, I have not yet perfected my creation of useful Sigil Servitors. You are completely incomprehensive of logic, and you are one of the people who, just since they can not understand the opposing side's argument, shuts down their brain and has no idea about anything that amounts to "intelligence".
this ytmnd has nothing to do with christianity. did you even watch all of it? ultracoolhumanite, i'll tell you this: If this world is a world of truth, then living life in truth is how we are supposed exist. One shouldn't be satisfied with that personally because when you get down to it, the love of our humanity will not be satisfied with that. We need to help others, and show others because, unfortunately for closeminded, nihilists like you, we essentially love each other deeply.
People believed the world was flat because at the time science could not prove otherwise. Who are you to say that the only thing that exsists beyind the universe is this super natural being.
People created God for this exact reason, to explain things that they couldnt with Science. Ancient Cultures all over prayed to Gods for miracles which are new regarded as patterns of natural science. Centuries from now, civilization will look back on us the same way for believing in God because we didnt know any
Do you even know what the term "nihilist" means? I'm not a nihilist. I just do not share the common belief in God. I stated previously that I support the idea of a "creator" but I am not arrogant enough to claim I know what it is, where it is, and what it looks like. I also never downed the teachings of Christianity only the way mankind goes about utilizing said teachings. Mankind proved it was not ready for God when Christ walked the Earth - and it continues proving it to this day.
I couldn’t tell you what the first form of life was on earth or human’s evolutionary chain; I’m a Political Science student and not a Biologist. I just used viruses as an example because they are the simplest form of life.
Finding higher truth is great; learn something new every day as the old cliché goes. However, we aren’t going to answer the ultimate question via YTMND. Instead of having a flame war, we should just stick to what YTMND is best at, teh funny. I’m going to stop being a hypocrite, peace.
There is really no proof here at all. If you delve into causes deep enough, you might eventually ask how God began. Either way, the origon of the universe wouldn't fall in line with these arguments either way, as there must be a cause for the cause. Unless you believe in the supernatural in the first place, this YTMND really doesn't show much.
I don't believe in god myself, that is just how i am, however, i did enjoy the logic and reasoning, and the overall feel of the presentation. It brought up some good points, (and i must say, even as an athiest, it anoys the hell out of me when someone asks that "rock" question) However, i do think that any attempt towards proving God is a moot point, simply because a religion is baised on faith, not proof, and while you call it proof, it only proves the possibility that he exists, not existance itself.
It's a shame you don't spend any time actually arguing for your points about the characteristics of God. It's also a shame that you don't entertain the notion of a circle of causality. It's especially a shame that you introduce your argument as a revolutionary new position, but it is really boring old hat.
not bad, however the god is alive part and is intelligent part i wonder. the life no way to ever know, so i wont touch it. the intelligence needed to create tho..look rocks dont dig holes, but they can create one by falling into the ground hard enough. rocks as u said arent intelligent, yet they can create holes by falling. creaas u say arent intelligent we evolved from non intelligent ancestors into intelligent beings. does god really need to be intelligent?
You can't refute an argument by making up a rule that says it's invalid. If the universe needs a cause, so does God, and saying He doesn't is simply arbitrary. In addition, there is no law that says non-intelligence cannot cause intelligence. On a different note,Einstein himself was a believer in Spinozan pantheism, if I'm not mistaken, which is (again, not 100% sure) the belief that the universe as a whole possesses emergent properties that gives it a form of intelligence, but not intelligence as we know i
Rational argument but flawed. Mainly because of your intelligence/non-intelligence assumption. This is subject matter best explored in an more academic setting, not a YTMND. Also, this argument relies on human observation. Human observation relies on known Human senses and perceptions. It is reasonable to assume that humans do not possess the mental and physical tools needed to completely dissect this question.
okay, i was with you (mostly) until the end...When you just breezed by saying that intelligence can't come from non-intelligence and life can't come from non-life. First off, how do you define intelligence? is there a line you can draw somewhere where you can say something smarter than x is intelligent and something dumber than x isn't? it is not black and white. it is perfectly reasonable to assume that slightly more intelligent beings evolved from each other, progressing to the level of intelligence..
No No No.
Using the logic which you use to say that the universe must have a prior cause, surely God must have been made prior.
And intelligence doesn't come from nothing? Bull. Any high school biologist can tell you how evolution took place from naturally occuring amino acids to form humans, intelligence is a bifactor of complicated life which is constantly trying to be better than it's enviroment to live.
...we see today. Have you never heard of the theory of evolution? seems like something you should look into. as for life coming from non-life, i am going to make the same argument (though i am sure there will be objections). what is classified as alive? are bacteria alive? what about viruses? The scientific community generally agrees that the former is alive and the latter isn't; a virus is simply a strand of DNA/RNA in a protein shell...
Onyxia (one of the earliest comments): All planets and stars DO have the same elements; that's one of the pinnacles of our understanding of the universe. Though diff planets contain diff amounts of each, we have all the same building blocks in our bodies and homes that are in stars and clouds a galaxy away.
"evolution took place from naturally occuring amino acids to
form humans, intelligence is a bifactor of complicated life"
As a biology major myself, I can tell you that your statement is wrong. Biologists can't really do anything but guess how the random amino acids and lipidic envelopes began to change to what we have today. We just assume that there was a pool of around 7.15 ph with adequate available carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur [the first bacteria most likely created energy via sulfur].
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org
I think it's funny that you state something intelligent cannot come from non-intelligence but then call God intelligent, which is circular reasoning where you actually prove yourself wrong.
You state that intelligence cannot come from nonintelligence but then state god is intelligent, which means either 1.) he doesn't exist according to your argument because he would have to be made by an intelligent being or 2.) something intelligent created him, which puts us back to the beginning.
"You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. The line must be drawn heah!"
Ok. I draw it at the universe. That's simpler, and requires less explanation than God. The End.
http://entertherzor.ytmnd.com/
If you have any questions about evolution or abiogenesis, I'd be happy to explain them for you. You really don't seem to understand either of them.
Honestly I see these arguments and it kinda makes me feel sad. Not because I think im right or better than anyone, but because I have FELT truth in my life, it feels right. I may face persecution but the bottom line is when you feel what is right, every other path just feels wrong. You don't have to go to church, you don't have to be a super active member in the religious community, you just have to know and believe in a being who would sacrificed His only so that you could have eternal life.
Also, the people who claim that God had to come from something, this is untrue because if we look at causality we can easily see that since everything has a beginning or cause, there must be an origional cause or beginning cause. God IS and always has existed... How much human time he went before creating our universe? It is a question that may only be answered at the end. God has always been, I know this is hard for alot of you to grasp because its alot to wrap your minds around. I hope all works out.
These are the facts.
1) Energy = Matter. 2) Matter can spontaneously appear from energy. 3) Given enough time enough energy will spontaneously come together to create the universe (the Big Bang). How much time? Well, given an infinite amount of time it is guaranteed to happen. The fact that the universe exists is proof that it did occur.
when i say time, i mean the timeline of our universe began. the only way your idea could work is if energy and matter could transfer over from an alternate universe, in some sort of "natural process" of the highest order. Unfortunately, we're left with the same problem since the universe from which this energy and matter came from would also have been subject to this process. See the loop?
I disagree.
Live cannot come from unlife:
Scientists believe just that; that life formed from unliving protiens in the "primordial ooze".
Intelligence from Unintelligence:
Again, this is what the whole evolution debate is all about. We evolved from something stupid, which evolved from something stupider, which evolved from something that could be described as nonintelligent.
First Cause; sure. But the attributes you described only serve to verify pre-existing beliefs that serve to make you feel
"In fact physical, chemical, and electrical energy can be completely changed into heat. But the reverse (heat into physical energy, for example) cannot be fully accomplished without outside help or without an inevitable loss of energy in the form of irretrievable heat. This does not mean that the energy is destroyed; it means that it becomes unavailable for producing work." Energy is always conserved. Period. It was never created.
I have three problems with your anaylsis. A), your use of God implies an omnipotent force, which you is not entirely proven by this YTMND (only that this "creator" has tons of power). B), life has formed from the huge force of powers during the beginnings of the Earth. We have created the building blocks of life by artifically introducing this immense, but natural, power into an enviroment. Therefore, life has been formed from non-life. C), intelligence has been formed from the "random" bumping of cells and
Also, the cosmological argument does not prove that God exists, as the term God carries with it a certain number of characteristics that, unless you are a follower of Spinoza, you would not do without. The first cause argument, if true (not likely), means that something caused the universe to come into existence. That's it. You have no reason to attribute omniscience or omnipotence or anything else to it, and doing so illogically would disrespect the logical conclusions that you attempted...
Therefore, life has been formed from non-life. C), intelligence has been formed from the "random" bumping of cells and energy, to form everything we know. Everything that exists today has been proven to be formed from the random collisions of cells. I know it sounds unlikely and disappointing, but as far as science goes, it's true. I nonetheless give you a five for your nicely done YTMND, and as part of the promise for the Starfox Chick YTMND.
1. God has no cause, but the universe has to have a cause. Not really. We don't understand how reality could exist forever considering the second law of thermodynamics - it's no reason to default to god because we don't know everything. God makes no more sense to fill the gap here than magic fairies would. I'll wait for actual proof, thanks. 2. Life can't come of non-life/intelligence can't come of none-intelligence. The YTMND was a 3 until there. You just made those two up, and both are totally wrong...
It is still not a part of accepted, proven scientific theory that nothing has ever been created or destroyed (antimatter / matter reactions included). Energy and matter exist. Energy and matter have existed. Without proving that there is something that has kept them existing, it is not logical to assume that they could fail to exist (under the burden of proof, PSR, etc.).
The inherent flaw in using science to define philosophy is that there are too many factors involved. In this case, aspects such as string theory, cyclical time, or dimension theory work against the core of your line of reasoning. One can still present a compelling argument, however it is not a total argument. Therein lies the secret to religion’s success; Once someone gets an answer they like, they accept it and stop asking questions. Science, in this case meaning fact’s and reason, never ceases and continu
I like how your counterarguments are the weakest strawmen ever. Off-topic as well. Your style is so obviously flawed that it works only in its presentation and not in its logical framework, kinda like religion. You didn't make any conclusions based on your "acceptable" premises. You drew false conclusions from your premises and drew a final conclusion from false conclusions from (possibly) true premises. Fun with propoganda!
life can come from non-life and intelligence can come from non intelligence.
A) the chemical building blocks that became the first set of self replicating DNA where not alive and yet the DNA was.
B the bacteria was not intelligent, and yet evolved into intelligent beings such as humans.
this means that-
the first point does not have to be a live meaning:
it can simply be a lot of energy that spread out and condensed into forms of matter.
Your attempt at an irrefutable argument fails on three accounts: 1. You assert that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, but you give no evidence for this. 2. You assert that life cannot come from non-life, but again, you give no evidence for this. 3. You assert that nothing created God, and once again, you give no evidence for this, acting instead as if it is a universal fact. What you have presented is the POSSIBILITY that God exists - which any intellectually honest person would grant.
Also defining things as "intelligent" and saying that nothing intelligent ever came from something non-intelligent and then straw-manning a rock writing a book is laughable. First off, you'd need to prove this notion of "intelligent" things, as all I see is matter and energy proceeding along determined paths according to the "natural" laws. Nothing "intelligent" deviates from the laws that un-"intelligent" things follow, therefore there is no reason to assume that one is super-non-intelligent (intelligent).
I believe - and I mean no offense by this - that you suffer under the problem of desiring a conclusion and then looking for evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that intelligence must come from intelligence or that life must come from life (indeed, there have been experiments which did indeed produce organic carbon-based compounds from inorganic beginnnings).
You appear to have simply assumed these as if they were a universal fact because it reduces your argument to only grant the possibility of God. You might care to re-examine how solid your argument really is. It is never a bad thing in life to question what we know for the purpose of examining whether we are making a logical error because we wish to reach a conclusion.
I am agnostic, I live my life not caring about a god, sure I wonder sometimes, i'm sure everyone wonders what happens after they die sometimes, but I live my life how I want to live it and when I die I hope that if there is a god that I wouldnt be judged on the religion I chose but on how I lived, I do enjoy a non religious stand point on god though
sorry man, but i disagree. i see no evidence of intelligence except that which is purely biological or was formed by something biological, and life is simply a collection of matter, the constituent parts of a human are not chemically impossible to replicate, though certainly beyond our capabilities to create life is not a mystical force.
I've seen so many argument for "Intelligent Design" (which is what this is), but noone mentions that even if intelligent design is true (which I, as an atheist, will admit to be a very infantesimal possiblility in the realm of science), this is still a LONG way away from proving Christianity or your chosen "organized" religious beleifs. Beleiving in intelligent design is not a religion, its just an explanation for creation which doesnt give anything else, you might as well be an atheist.
-- Redshift -- This does not prove in any way that the universe had a start. If I stood opposite a friend and threw tennis balls at eachother, when they passed in the middle they would look like they were moving directly appart from a distance. Also; at such small distances what about things like quantum changes.
Actually Zam, Intelligent Design is just creationism with a new name, as was discovered at the Dover trial, and creationism was ruled as religion in the 1980's, so it can't be taught in our school...as it is religion.
This ytmnd saddens me, this is basically Kalams crappy cosmological argument, mixed with Todd Friel's BS.
Theoreticly, life can come from non-life. I forget what the theory is called though, but supposedly organic material was formed by the processes of early Earth. One scientist made a device simulating this environment, and parts that make up living organisms. He stopped the experiment though, saying that "only God should create life". The experiment wasn't been performed today though because of the risk that some dangerous bacteria or something could be created, as well as ethical issues.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link