Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
Created on: September 7th, 2006
Why God Exists (Updated with Q and A at the end)
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.

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
September 7th, 2006
(0)
+1 for NEDM
September 7th, 2006
(0)
yes
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"GOOD JOB! Who created God?" hahahahahahahaha
September 7th, 2006
(0)
A few points: Entropy states that energy will become less concentrated/organized over time. It does not posit that energy actually DECREASES; it may be said to be "spreading out". Energy therefore seems to be constant within the bounds of our universe, but outside the bounds of our universe (singularities in black holes and the big bang) we cannot know. Also: Causation, though it seems an elementary concept, becomes quite muddled and ill-defined in much of quantum physics; Causality as it related to the
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Fail
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5 for quality, however i do not agree with it. this ytmnd obviously took a lot of time and effort, so i 5 it,, gj
September 7th, 2006
(0)
OMG. Boring. Not to mention that Dick Cheney created God.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
No.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
lol subliminal
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Well done! Whether athiest or not no one can say you didn't mount an intelligent argument!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You're explanation for why God doesn't have a cause isn't the strongest it could be... The only reason you gave for the universe not existing forever is entropy, and entropy doesn't necessarily affect anything outside the 'natural'. therefore, the first cause could have existed forever, and never have started. also... your argument for life being created from non-life and inteligence being created from non-inteligence doesn't really hold up. the leading scientific theory for the start of life
September 7th, 2006
(0)
big bang is not understood at all. Ultimately, this is an apeal to ignorance. Yes, its true that science has no strong theories on the ultimate origin of the universe (yet), and it may never have such a theory. So, we do not know where we came from. While many at this point would declare that the answer must be "God", there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ultimate causation of our universe relates in any way to anything approximating the common idea of God.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
So, given: There is a lot about the universe we don't understand, but that ignorance is not proof of the divine. It is proof of our limitations.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"Average rating of 3.14 at this time indicates that 62.8% of YTMND users are retards. Better than most of the world, but still not great. Stop trying to turn people into weakminded fools, *ssh*l*e." No, that means he likes pie.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
(cont.) the leading theory beihind the start of life has it being a random event. As well, think about the popular saying "stick a monkey in front of a typewriter for an infinite amount of time and he'll eventually produce the complete works of shakespeare. monkeys aren't the only way of producing random effects... and science has evolution starting out way less then college diplomas.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
typical right-wing christian BS......
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ok then.. what came before god? Good game
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5'd for the truth. Not like something could have come from nothing. Heck, I believe in things from all sorts of religions. Not one is completely right or wrong, and that's a FACT. For all we know, our universe could be some kid's science project and his universe and so on. Only exception is Scientology. It's bullsh*t. Anyways, thanks for creating this, You have given much reasonable evidence and you have my respect.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Needs more horse dick.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Ugh. I utterly detest you for wasting my time with this bullsh*t. I usually don't write bad reviews, but after watching the whole thing I just have to spit out the bad taste in my mouth at the one who caused it. Since debating on the internet doesn't yield much gain, I'll just bitch at your stupidity. This is such an example of pompous, self-proclaimed wisdom. "Oh look, I'm distorting science to prove my irrational argument! Yay." F*ck you. You wasted my time. I hope you get badly crippled in a car accident
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Go directly to Heaven. Do not go through Hell, do not wait in pegitory for 2000 years. *Jesus winks to whetstone*
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ew i gave it a 2 by mistake.. its fixed now
September 7th, 2006
(0)
simply calling people ignorant for questioning the "cause of god" just isn't good enough, especially after baseing your entire argument on "cause and effect".
September 7th, 2006
(0)
... and spend the rest of your life asking your imaginary friend, "Why me?"
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5'd for using words most people don't know. You, my friend have put into words what I have not been able to-with 1337 skills to put it into a YTMND. Grade A +
September 7th, 2006
(0)
IF all god did was create an explosion why is he so great and why would he happen to be just like some primate species that would evolve years later, why would god not then be an alien?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5d b.c its he first scientific thing proving god exists rather than proving against it
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Lol, even if there had to be a causation, why couldn't it have been a pantheon of gods? Or a superior being that does not fit the human definition of deity, but we are more like cells in a giant, even more superior being? Why couldn't the universe itself be the first causation? I guess you could say then the universe itself would be god, but since that would be pretty deist I don't think it accomplishes your little preachy mission here :P
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Good.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Also--read about Hume's problem of causation
September 7th, 2006
(0)
bushhatesf*gs.ytmnd.com - replace * with a
September 7th, 2006
(0)
OMGWTFBBQ. SCIENTIFIC proof of the existance of god?! auto fav.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
YTMND is a place for comedy, maybe you believe in god and i dont, but im not about to force my beliefs on you so dont waste my time with yours.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
lol nice try
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If you establish that the universe is expanding then it cannot be as described in Genesis 1-2, which is described as a static universe. Do you accept that the Bible is not always the literal truth? It does not follow that because the universe is expanding that the universe 'came to be'. To 'come to be', there has to be something before it. The universe, by your definition, includes time, so there was nothing before it, because 'before' requires the concept of time.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
well i thought it was interesting.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"We walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"'does your boss know you spend all your time on ytmnd?' Yes. I'm self-employed." Re : unemployed
September 7th, 2006
(0)
4. This is quite a well put argument.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"non-intelligence cannot create intelligence." it's called evolution. i.e. we are smarter than the apes. we evolved from apes. therefore, non-intelligence can develop into intelligence. you fail. oh, and you neglected to mention the big bang theory. i wholeheartedly disagreee with you and find your logic ridiculous, but i HAVE to +1 for "also, poland." it's just my nature.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If God is alive can he die?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
holy crap, someone thought before expressing an opinion! gj! all the downvoters on this site are homosexual. and god hates homos. especially you. kthxbai
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Peyton Randolph (VA) 5 September 1774 - 22 October 1774 Henry Middleton (SC) 22 October 1774 - 26 October 1774 Peyton Randolph (VA) 10 May 1775 - 24 May 1775 John Hanc*ck (MA) 24 May 1775 - 1 November 1777 Henry Laurens (SC) 1 November 1777 - 10 December 1778 John Jay (NY) 10 December 1778 - 28 September 1779 Samuel Huntington (CT) 28 September 1779 - 10 July 1781 Thomas McKean (DE) 10 July 1781 - 5 November 1781 John Hanson (MD) 5 November 1781 - 4 November 1782
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Sorry, good sir. This is faulty logic. The First Cause has been refuted many times. I am a Catholic, but also a philosopher, and I have only seen persuasive arguments for God's existence, not solid proofs. You need faith for religion, reason only aids so far... also this is way too long with a simple argument, a faulty one.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I have another explanation you might want to put in for the "God makes a rock so big he can't lift it" question. 1, It is a pseudo-question, and makes no real sense. 2. Even if it did make sense, God created humans inferior, and God is not governed by our logic.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Elias Boudinot (NJ) 4 November 1782 - 3 November 1783 Thomas Mifflin (PA) 3 November 1783 - 30 November 1784 Richard Henry Lee (VA) 30 November 1784 - 23 November 1785 John Hanc*ck (MA) 23 November 1785 - 29 May 1786 Nathaniel Gorham (MA) 6 June 1786 - 2 February 1787 Arthur St. Clair (PA) 2 February 1787 - 22 January 1788 Cyrus Griffin (VA) 22 January 1788 - 2 March 1789
September 7th, 2006
(0)
All those were presidents before washington, yes udner a different set of rules, but american presidents nontheless. Other than that flaw, I thought the YTMND was amazing.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Speeding up the animation over the part where you make logical errors (i.e. the crux of your argument about what constitutes the First Cause) does not strengthen your case. If you are going to claim to use logic, you can't make assertions like "Can beauty come from non-intelligence?" or "Sounds like God, doesn't it?" are as logicially sound as 'Just look at a sunset'.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You also did not resolve the 'what came before God' objection. If the Universe exhibits characteristics A,B, and C and 'to have characteristics A,B,C' you must have been 'created by a creature that has characteristics A,B, and C', then if "God has characteristics A,B,C" the question 'what created God' is valid. 'Nothing came before God because he's God' is equivalent to 'Nothing came before the Universe because it's the Universe'. You can say 'God Is.', but it is as logicially sound as 'The Universe Is."
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If god is not governed by our logic, then why even discuss him? He's the equivalent of a square circle. Also, there is a reason for the "rock so heavy even he cannot lift it" questions... they demonstrate the problems of using Omnis. Omni categories are illogical by default as they allow illogical actions to occur as well as logical actions.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your argument is that because the universe exists, something started it, but then what created God? I know you answered that in your site, however all you said was that the idea was stupid. Your main argument proves your argument wrong. Sorry man. The human mind can't grasp something with no beginning, and whether it was God who had no beginning or the universe, it doesn't matter. No matter how hard a person tries they can't prove/disprove God.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Shell games are nothing to base faith upon. I look forward to your next YTMND, where you'll mangle Pascal's wager in crayon.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Cyberman would approve, and so do I. But I agree with boomaga.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"vote based on the merits and quality of the YTMND not based on your religious standpoint" lol. And It's Waaay Too Long.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
So God is the first God, yet there is no cause that created God, therefore your premise 1 isn't true. Also, where does it say that life has to be created by and intelegent living thing?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Great.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
er, God is the first cause*
September 7th, 2006
(0)
what a joke.... what you start your first philosophy class this semester... or did you think up this BRAND SPANKING NEW ARGUMENT all by yourself... oh wait... AQUINAS SAID THIS 800 years ago and Kant destroys it... come on... at least put up the Ontological argument or somthing
September 7th, 2006
(0)
this is a weakly informed arguement to be honest. it's not bad for a lower-level student of the subject. 2'd for a really, really f*cking pointless ytmnd; +1 for effort and my feeling bad for your ignorance
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ontological sucks really bad
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Vote this one NWS so we can get this junk off of the main page.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I guess it's OK. But how about the theroy that the universe is spherical, constantly expanding untill it finally collapses upon itself and re-expands?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
a good Christan ytmnd :-)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Theories=facts? No.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Dude, your entire argument was set up nicely...then boils down to "God did it, because he's God." It's just as if it was set up in ancient Greece, and they asked where lightning came from, and you said it had to have a cause, and that cause was Zeus.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Lol, theories.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
gotcha
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your theory is wrong. Mildly intelligent, but wrong. Entropy says that energy declines due to the expansion of space but theres documented proof that eventually the universe will collapse, thereby reseting the system. Therefore its possible the universe has existed for an eternity before now. Also, "non-alive cannot make alive" is a terrible argument. When the universe began it was primordial basics like hydrogen. These are the basic blocks for life. I believe in god for differn't reasons. 1 for not funny
September 7th, 2006
(0)
'Very' good. Five and fav'd.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Cool
September 7th, 2006
(0)
lol, the atheists don't have valid points anymore.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
well done
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ok, now that we FINALLY have proof god exists, can we move onto which god is the REAL god? I vote for l. ron.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5d for effort. I stopped agreeing with you once you stated that the first cause had to be alive and intelligent. I do agree with you about the first cause being 'super-natural' - unexplainable. I'm an agnostic bastard; I don't believe that we can know if there is a god or the true nature of god. (if one exists ^_^)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
@everyone screaming "Who made god?" No one. http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-objections.html
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your logic does not work. If you think of it that way, what has caused god to be?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
f*ggy short film - I don't go to YTMND for this kind of stupid sh*t
September 7th, 2006
(0)
If God is exponentially more intelligent and complex than a human, then his coming to being is too complex to comprehend. Deal with it.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
God is what people blame when they don't know the real reason. Cosmological argument fails at life. Nice music and pretty colors, tho.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
After several hundred posts the results are in!....... Physics Students on YTMND: 1e9 whetstone: 0
September 7th, 2006
(0)
tell me, why is it so fun to call us christians Idiotic for our beleve, we just don't want people to burn in the pit of hell...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
phail. Go back to philosophy 100 nub.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The universe natural coming of being is too complex to comprehend. Anyone can do THAT...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
http://christianmartyrdomonline.ytmnd.com/
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Awesome. Sadly, YTMND is filled with lots of SAers, the majority of which are the "hurr religion" type. Which causes downvotes. :(
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I hate the views in this ytmnd so much and they are horribly flawed, but 3'd for a quality and tidy-looking ytmnd presentation
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I liked the idea, and it started well. But, in the end you haven't proven anything. Causality is a redundant arguement made as a backlash against scientific explanations of the origins of the universe (which cannot in turn be used to disprove a God): "what was the cause of the cause of the universe...erm, must be God", in the end even you dont know, so you just assume divine intervention, pat yourself on the back and dont think to try and look any further.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
God's real, but you're a Born-Again and worst of all you don't like Catholics. So you fail.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I just looked at that "existence of god" sites rebuttal of not everything having a cause... LOL! They didn't even give a solid response, they just rationalized away acausal events in Quantum nature as being "the provisional nature of science" and not necessarily proof of acausality!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
2 for lack of funny.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I don't feel like reading all the comments, so this may have already been said- You can't use science to prove the existance of a God, or use science in making a case for religion. Also, it life CAN come from non-life. If the conditions are just right, and the right molecules are present, the formation of amino acids is possible. This is incredible rare, which would explain why there are no other forms of life outside of Earth. (As we know so far)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You also described Dharma.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
It's possible the big bang occured after the previous universe, after expanding to it's limits, lessened in size until returning to it's previous, highly dense, shape. You failed once you made the assertion of God. It really just seems to say 'it Could be God, it could be a prior Universe imploding on itself and rexploding, it could be anything'. If something that occurs must have a cause, then what caused God?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Anyway, nice ytmnd and clean work. Just ignore the HURR RELIGION types. They like to pat themselves on the back for thinking they're rebels or something.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Really though, your unfounded assumptions that you state as fact such as non intelligence cannot create intelligence and that life cannot come from non life are rediculous,_you_dont_know_. Zealous religious types trying to charade as logical people who can present carefully constructed arguements...Im not saying I can disprove or prove the existance of a creator, what I can do however is disprove your arguement. But I guess at this point nowone is still reading the comments ^_^
September 7th, 2006
(0)
LOVED IT!! 5'D!!!!!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I dunno why but when someone says "walk by faith, bot by sight", i think "be gullible" and how much faith over site would help when you are walking towards a cliff...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"Entropy says that energy declines due to the expansion of space but theres documented proof that eventually the universe will collapse, thereby reseting the system." That just ain't true. There's a possibility that the universe is closed, and thus will result in a big crunch, however scientists today have found that omega is close to 1 (Closed Universe) < 1 = Flat Universe < (Open Universe). As such, the universe will keep on expanding infinitely unto a cold and empty hibernation.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Well Written but fundamentally(sp?) Flawed.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
My objections: your premises that life must come from life and intelligence must come from intelligence are appeals to the reader's intuition. You don't prove them, and they are disputable. They would also imply that evolution is impossible. All you really showed is that time had a beginning.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I see your point, and it is a very good point, but i still will never believe in god. ill 5 it for all the work and your good point.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your only error is the idea that life cannot come from unlife. Life is merely a series of chemical and electrical reactions, it has no scientific definition.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Please, please, take this debate somewhere else, I do not care who is wrong or right but the interfaith pissing contest needs to STOP. I didn't watch beyond the first frame, now tell me, do I sound stupid? Or should you guys take this to a forum, where it belongs?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I just read that thing that DoomRater posted "http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-objections.html"... That is so retarded, so if things don't need a cause to happen, then lets skip God and say that the universe created itself without any cause... :P And scientists have observed things that happen that have no cause? Then they obviously were not looking hard enough and they didn't notice a cause. There always has to be a cause, no matter how small, like the butterfly effect...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Particles collided, creating the universe. Chemicals and heat created living organisms, which evolved into more and more complex ones. The ones with brains are able to learn. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence? WTF?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
St. Thomas Aquinas you ain't.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The life from non life and intellegence from non... are stupid conservative retoric with no science. You sir FAIL! By your own design the universe could be the horizon event that occured.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5'd for interesting ideas
September 7th, 2006
(0)
...ok.. i cant come up with anything but my belives is that he doenst exist i belvien evolution not adam and eve and the big bang not that god created everything there are millions of other planets out there theres hella religions here and cristianity wasnt the first jews were first and so were muslims this so called jesus claims that god is his father i belive that started cristanity along with virgin mary its impossible to be pregnet with out getting knocked up.. if there is a god... he did it to mary.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Also you forgot Polend.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
you are forgetting that god causes several critical metaphysical paradoxes that can never be logically explained.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
(imagine a paragraph-sized god rant here that no one will ever bother to read)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
For the comments, oh and lol, nukes.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You get a plus 1 because you at least tried to use logic. You have proven to a reasonable extent that something that we do not understand created the universe, but you haven't proven what. Which do you think statistically would be more likely to be the cause of the universe: A being that somehow knows everything, yet manages to make mistakes, is full of contradictions, and has yet to give us any evidence of its existence, or f*cking anything else because choice one makes no sense.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Super F*CKING 5. Using YTMND for something different in my book gets a 5. Bravo.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I love how you slide in the "intellience/non-intelliegence" and "alive/not-alive" parts. Three examples of causality and you just sneak those in. Classic. You fail.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
well made, but it doesn't actually prove anything.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I also object to your unclear definition of "nature." If everything outside my realm of understanding is supernatural, then my car works by magic.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Major flaw: If everything must have had a sufficient prior cause for it to have happened, then God must of been created by something. And that being would have to be caused by something, so on so forth.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'll keep this short and simple. The teleological/inductive argument for the existence of God has been thoroughly refuted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_design_argument Your explanations are thoroughly unsatisfactory. If intelligence requires intelligence to be created, then God would require a creator, unless you make this an exception, but this breaks the rule since even one instance in which intelligence doesnt require an intelligent creator removes the 100% certainty assumed for proof
September 7th, 2006
(0)
This has probably been posted before, but I don't feel like scrolling through that much. Your logic is very... well, logical. However, if what you say is true- that life cannot come from non-life, then you would be forced to admit that God cannot come from no-God.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I know you tried to answer that question, but your answer is irrelevent since the assumption you used to derive its premise is incoherent.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Scared the hell out of me with NEDM. I thought you were going to show the burning cat video.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
your and idiot, that was a rant, no real info in it at all, just you repeating theories
September 7th, 2006
(0)
^"your and idiot" is perhaps the least coherent phrase I've heard or read all day. Still faved.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
1'd for trying to prove to people who obviously don't give a sh*t that there is a god. I didn't watch the whole thing because I don't give a sh*t. I'm not going to be suddenly saved and have the power of christ compell me if you managed to make me think that there is as such thing as a god.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I like this, great job in its organization, and great use of basic apologetics its too bad the people trying to refute this don't have a full understanding on the definition of Omniscience.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Reductionist fallacy. The second law doesn't work the way in which you describe it. The universe's energy is not decreasing, it's just becoming less orderly as it spreads out. Also, arguments you cited such as "red shift" can also be applied to supporting the Big Bang theory.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'll play it safe and not care about the afterlife or religion until I die. I live the present man (now dog), THE NOW!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Lol, religion.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5 to counter the angsty/f*ggy 14-year old atheists, -1 for flawed logic (everything is causal, but apparently God isn't? WTF?)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Though the big bang's causes, if it did happen (evidence includes the red shift and the 3K background radiation), are completely unknown. It could have been God causing it or the results of him killing himself for all we know.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
All the nerds reciting what they learned in Philosophy 100 need to shut up just as much as the preachy Christians who listen to POD. Christian or not, this is a stupid, un-funny, preachy YTMND.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
intresting
September 7th, 2006
(0)
this YTMND wins the award for greatest number of long comments evar.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Its either a one or a five, and flawed logic sucks. also: ur gay!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
no ..whetstone, arguing the existance of god in this manner only serves to divide. if you truly want to help your fellow ytmnd'er, address the heartfelt writings of men like robert ingersoll (see especially ch. XII of 'about the holy bible') or give counsel to the hearts of those who feel betrayed and offended by a god they thought was merciful and good..
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Everything has just cause How did god come to exist - go die
September 7th, 2006
(0)
That's full of logical fallacies...and you're making way too many assumptions. 1. You're assuming the Big Bang was the creation of everything. 2. You're assuming that there has to be a "first causal"...and... 3. Your George Washington analogy is horrible. He may have been the first president, but there were still people before him who created his position. Oh, and the "laws of geometry" are completely man-made. Please have a basic understanding of physics and mathematics before you spout nonsense.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Yet still, if everything comes from something, any God there is must have some from something. You can't just say that whatever is outside of our universe is immune to the laws of our universe. It's like saying whatever's outside of Earth's atmosphere is immune to its gravity. And there WAS a President before Washington. In fact,several. In Congress Assembled. Let's look at why God DOESN'T exist, though, shall we? What makes Christianity and all that any different than Roman and Greek "mythology"?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
That's alot of fancy talk, we're not but humble pirates.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
2 stars for trying. But saying, "Durr, causality doesn't apply to God because nothing existed before God" begs the question (in the original definition of the term) so obviously that I trust that even you can figure it out. *** Causality is a universal rule; perhaps it breaks down at the beginning of the universe because BEFORE THE UNIVERSE began causality did not apply. *** Or, perhaps, something OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE caused it, preserving causality nicely (in this universe anyway).
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You got owned by Chichiri.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I like this very much and it is basically my standpoint, yet with a few differences, and since this is not totaly about religion, I do not find it necessary to state them. I do, however, have some statements. You are assuming that life cannot come from non-life and that intelligence can not come from non-intelligence. It has not been proven by science, and conversely has started to be proved opposite. Dr. Cyril Phenom Peruma sealed what is beleived to be the contents of a primitive Earth atmosphere.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
ALSO: Who says intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence? You just threw this in with no justification other than some sh*t about rocks failing their college exams. *** Who says life cannot come from non-life? This one has even less explanation than the last.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
There was an experiment in the 1950s by Americans scientists that showed that chemicals essential for life could be formed in the right conditions, which were present on prehistoric earth. This leads one to think that other chemicals essential to life could form thereby forming life.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
No one can really say where the universe came from, and it all stems from personal belief and thought about this subject, or loosely, religion. I am an atheist, so I do not believe in a "god" but I can't explain what started the universe... but this doesn't mean I'm wrong in my belief because if one asks a christian or catholic the same question, they can't answer it for sure either. So while while whetstone is saying that a god or higher power created the universe, it absolutely doesn't prove anything...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
intelligent design theory loses at life... your argument is flawed in a couple ways but explaining it to you is a waste of my time cause you are blinded by your faith and beliefs...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Two stars... because clearly you put quite a bit of time into this. However, you are wrong.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Christianity ftw!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Great job. Just two points I dissagree with, You assume that life cannot come from non-life and that inteligents cannot come from non-inteligents. Right now I don't have conclusive examples to dissprove these, but I don't think you should blindly assume them to be true.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
^^ sorry bout that truth be told
September 7th, 2006
(0)
This battle between god and evolution has been going on forever..In my opinion, this doesnt make any sense. But im not going to down vote because im not an ass. I just dont think ytmnd is the right place for this kind of debate because we = dumb.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
"WHY GOD EXISTS: an INFORMATIONAL ytmnd by whetstone". you have no idea what a smug bastard you sound like. some people do not and will not ever believe in god or jesus or the tooth fairy. if you truly believe in what your church teaches,(besides raping little boys) you'll accept that.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
WHOAH LOOK AT ALL THE HUGE PARAGRAPHS OF RIGHTING. "LOL HURR RELIGION AMIRITE?"
September 7th, 2006
(0)
this one time i went to a humor site called ytmnd.com and was bombarded with religious crap. i was not pleased.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You're an idiot. All cosomological arguments suffer from the falacy of special pleading. Even a basic Philosophy 101 course would have taught you this. Basically, your first "Objection" slide doesn't address the question. You state that everything needs a cuase but then proceed to create a special class of objects ("god") which needs no cause. That's straight up ignorant dog.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Intelligence? Last time I checked, there was something called "Evolution" which suggested that everything intelligent started from things that were less intelligent, all the way back to prokaryotes and individualized amino acids, which could be considered pretty non-intelligent.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
There is not, nor will there ever be, a God. God was a project of mankind to explaint he unexplainable. Over time, science explained these phenomena, resulting in the stupidity of believing in a "God." Henceforth, God is not real. Get over it, and stop crying. I'm sick of this sh*t.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
inside a jar and pulsed ultra-violet through it. Within a very short amount of time he observed among other things, ATP, and I beleive clumping of proteins. If you beleive in evolution and natural selection you will also beleive that from that over the course of time, viruses or pryons, or some other primitive life would evolve due to mutation. P.S. It's actually Cyril Ponnamperuma, my bad. P.P.S.- A response would be appreciated.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
worthless, how could you possibly talk about causality, and suddenly, they don't apply to God's omnipotence. And you do the judeochristian thing and assume it's a HE. I don't like your presentation, and your presumption that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "stupid".
September 7th, 2006
(0)
that doesnt make sense, why cant life come from non-life. just because things sound good in your head doesnt mean they have to be. just like god.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
So, collecting a bunch of adjectives that sound like god prove he exists?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I don't like my YTMNDs preaching at me. I give you a two for effort.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
OK, GOT AN IDEA. CREATE A YTMND ABOUT HOW GOD SUCKS AND DO IT WELL AND YOU'LL GET A BUNCH OF FIVES. THAT'S THE KIND OF SITE YTMND IS. 'CUZ YTMNDERS KNOW, YES _KNOW_, THERE IS NO GOD. (AMIRITE?)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You'll probably get tons of opinions but I am fiving it for being an intelligent YTMND that makes you think deeply. D: And has a few jokes, too.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your logic is a bit flawed & your objections at the end have very little to do with what your presentation is about. Sounds to me like trickery into religion
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5'd for awesomeness.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
People have a tendency to confuse the Christian God, and the concept of an omnipotent supernatural being, because people refer to them by the same names. Change it to "PROOF OF THE MAGICAL OMNIPOTENT UNICORN LAWLZ!!!11" or something like that. The logic remains the same, but people won't confuse it with the Christian God.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
the subliminal thing worked on me.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
and anyway, who's to say the universe is an effect of anything. i know god is an effect of something, ignorance. The assumption is that if it is too hard to explain a magical humanoid did it. That's childish and too easy of a conclusion to work.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
A very interesting site.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Uh, what was that non-intelligence cannot create intelligence BS? Life evolved from quite stupid single celled organisms through series of natural selections and mutations. Random mutations strung by natural selection can result in eventual intelligence.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
very nice, but considering most of YTMND is teenagers and most teenagers are God hating libs, this was doomed to be downvoted. very good logic, though
September 7th, 2006
(0)
a f*ggy short film, but interesting. midvote
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Who's to say that the thing that created the universe wasnt the first thing, and it was created by somthing that was created by god....
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You had my 5 at the NEDM reference. A noble effort, and though I do find your logic flawed, I am a Roman Catholic and I believe in God. I just don't think we as humans were ever meant to ever fully grasp the concept of one. Faith is good enough for me; everybody has their reasons to believe what they do.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Simply put, it will never be certain for any of us to truly know what happened and if it happened. Whether or not, civilization often felt the need to have a superior being to them. Though I admire your bravery for sharing your insight, people will never truly know whats going on in this universe. For now, we really need to focus on our own lives and not who or what created them. Only time will tell where these things go, but YTMND isn't the place for that. Good luck
September 7th, 2006
(0)
o ya, the law of casuality says that all things the come to be... How can time come to be, asuming that come to be means over time and the universe is space+time (maybe?)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
but if you can prove God exists, why do we need faith anymore?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I should point out that Godwin's Law has already taken effect for this thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law (using wikipedia, forgive me)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
First, let me say that I am Roman Catholic. Now let me say your argument is flawed. Life can arise by chance. It's just very unlikely. There doesn't have to be intelligence behind intelligence. And, even if I were to accept this as true, that there needs to be a higher intelligence behind any intelligence, St. Thomas Aquinas's assertion that the First Mover doesn't need to be moved doesn't make much sense. I thought every effect needed a cause?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
+1 for cool visuals. But. you make a lot of assumptions. for example...why should life come from life? etc. entirely failing argument
September 7th, 2006
(0)
i dont know where the "intelligence can only come from intelligence" thing came from. A lot of wild assumptions in this
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Hey I've got a great idea why don't you make a bold "I know more than you do" statement on a medium that's meant to be humorous and irreverent? You should look into air-dropping this in detailed leaflets over the ocean. That would have about as much point as you posting this on this website. Pick your battles better.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Again, even if you give proof, or facts that appose peoples arguments about religion, so many of them will just try to debunk it. Either from hatred or to try and have their views, which everyone is rightly entitled to and shouldn't have taken away, seen as the true view.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I also approve.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
not completely sound but a good attempt. people should learn to accept that both arguments for and against divinity are limited to knowledge based only on life. unless you die and ressurect then no argument can be sound. so quit hating the religious and quit judging the agnostic/atheist!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Your argument has several inherent flaws. The obvious one is that you say all things have a cause, except God. Either all things have a cause, or they do not. The other is Life cannot come from non life, and as such, intelligence cannot come from non intelligence. Intelligence evolved at the same pace life did. And the theory of life coming from amino acids, proteins, etc can be read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life as I do not have the room to discuss it here.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
This site does nothing but prove that Whetstone is stupid. http://entertherzor.ytmnd.com/ FTW
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You do know that you're basically preaching to a brick wall, don't you?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5'd for science. +5 for humanities.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
So you're saying that George Washington magically appeared out of nowhere? And had no mother and father? Really, this is just baseless. Why can't the big bang be the 'first cause'? Just because it's unintelligent and unalive.... hold on, what if the big bang WAS intelligent and alive? That's just as possible as a god, right? This God might have a Bible to 'prove' his existance, but from a scientific standpoint, it's statistically just as possible as an omnipresent omnipowerful individiual.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
As you have used Wikipedia for your philosophical challenge, I will likewise direct your attention to another of its pages. Specifically, they discuss the work of Dr. Günther Wächtershäuser, whose iron-sulfur theory of self-promoting chemicals may hold the key to understanding the origins of life. Life may indeed come from non-life. Hence, intelligence, which only life possesses, may arise from nothingness as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_W%C3%A4chtersh%C3%A4user
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Wow, Robert Ingersoll is my new homeboy. Thanks, Mustafa-Chihocho!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
so the big bang couldnt be the first cause because it's unintelligent and not alive? i believe there must've been a deity that made everything, just not necessarily the christian god we all think of.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Very intelligent, respectful, and well thought out, albeit flawed. There's still a lot we don't know about the universe and its beginnings. As an agnostic it still seems too early to put all your eggs in one basket or another.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Sure, there may be a higher life form that created us and the universe for that matter (which is all you are really trying to prove here), but what about the thought of being bad in life sending you do a "hell" for the rest of eternity? And if you're good, you go to this eternal paradise? Come on, that's insane. Also, do you think this higher being listens to our "prayers" and whatnot? Does going into aa building with a cross on it to pray have any effect at all on the outcome of sed prayer?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
And since when do you know what god does? You said something about god 'not tempting himself', yet you clearly have no way to tell how god acts, unless you claim to hear god's message and are a prophet. Which I highly doubt. (wow, I sound really mean) How do you know that he's not lying to you? Maybe he doesn't love everyone... he did have 'his people' destroy all those other cities. Not only destroy, but to murder the men, women and children.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Not everything has a beginning and an end, douchebag. Cyclical universe theory FTW. Needed more NEDM. Failget.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Very well thought out, but do a little more research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Universe_Theory
September 7th, 2006
(0)
This is basically Aquinas' 2nd proof of the existance of God (Don't bother reading the other 4 they're basically the same idea). However, this argument is flawed. First I would like to point out to commenters that assume some conclusions that this proof does not prove the existance of a god (much less the Christian God) but only the existance of a First Cause. But more importantly you claim that there exists another realm that is outside of human understanding and therefore outside science and reason.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
...No, it doesn't. All you've "proven," is that there is something intelligent and powerful that created the universe. Not a God that listens to prayers and grants miracles. Lets say you, somehow, actually managed to create matter. And inside that matter was a world similar to ours. on that world, there's a form of life. And they believe it was you who made this world of theirs. So, they decide to construct some buildings and talk (with feeling) to you. Would you listen, let alone be able to hear?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Just because he made rules for us doesn't mean he has to follow them himself. He's God, right? He can do whatever he wants. So don't think you know him, because the very state of christianity is not knowing God, yet having faith in him.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I liked it. I doubt it will change any minds though. YTMNDers are pretty stubborn.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Universe_Theory
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The merit and quality are outstanding. I don't believe it, however, because you claim that since something had to cause the univere, then something had to cause God. In this case, they are equally meritless, and what's more, this only proves the existence of a Deist God and does not necessarily implicate a Christian one of any sort. Science still accounts for more than religion, so out of the two implausibilities I'll accept the one that took more work.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Yeah, everything is caused by something. Except for God because he's special. right?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
a clearly thought out review of the Defence of God.. makes me feel like I was in First year Philosophy all over again lol. But I must ask. If based on your position everything must have a prior cause what is God's prior cause? Second of all people can use the big bang theory as a replacement to God in your argument because all you have proven is that the World requires a cause not that God is that Cause. I would try to provide a bit better of an argument but alas my knowledge of Philosophy has declined
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Cyclical universe is flawed as it still leaves an unexplained origin. Also, antimatter makes it more difficult to work
September 7th, 2006
(0)
However you do not allow the possibility that the universe we live in is above our understanding. Life and intelligence being special and causality are not truths but rather human ideas of how the universe works. Causality, the major idea behind your argument, is a human inference based only on what we can observe. Your application of it my be an overextrapolation of it similar to how Newtonian mechanics fail at relativistic speeds.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
and might I say thank you phire you have said what I wish I could say. *thats what you get when you switch from Philosophy to English* lol
September 7th, 2006
(0)
lol, it didn't work
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Personally, I think that technology will progress at a rate such that as time approaches its end, computing power will appproach infinity. And in that last instant where time is at its end, right before nothingness, computing power will hit infinity (since it would have long ago become self-sustaining), and the ultimate computing expiriment will begin: simulating an entire universe from beginning to end. And it will repeat this universe. So on, ad infinium. This way, everything has a cause. Problem solve
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Thank you.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I'll give it three, Just because it's well created, and more than enough to fool most ignorant people. Your arguments are however, flawed in so many ways, it would be impossible to state them all.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I gave it a 3 for the sheer fact it did have quality on it's side, but there were a few flaws I saw. 1. We know you wanted to not have this address a christian god, and you did a mostly good job. Until you started referring to god with a sexual attribute. God wouldn't need a gender for one, not to mention even in the christian belief, Adam and Eve were originally sexless and created in god's image. Therefor, god would be sexless. I see that causality flaws with god was already addressed, --
September 7th, 2006
(0)
What was the sufficient prior cause to God then? Very well thought out I will give you that, however it can be turned around. I would be very intrested in your response to this. Oh, and congrats on explaining something that is saposed to go against all science with science.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
-- though I'd like to point out that the universe = everything in existance. If you are outside of the universe, you don't exist.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
WHY DID THE MUSIC STOP??? I LIKED THAT! D:
September 7th, 2006
(0)
actually Midvalley this line of reasoning only proves the existance of a "first cause" of the universe.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
hmmm... nice and even thought provoking work. it does sound like "god" (an unknown unexplainable "entity" we have no idea about) but not the kind of god in any sort of religion made by man.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
All was good until the end... you say the prime cause was "Intelligent, because intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence" and "Alive, because life cannot come from non-life" Both intelligence and life can arise without divine intervention. Also, God doesn't need a cause, just because you say so? =/ 5'd anyway
September 7th, 2006
(0)
people that don't belive in god are just ideots... I mean there has to be a creator? if the big bangs true then how can it just develop out of nothing no matter nothing... there has to be a creator
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Also, though I am not sure the impossibility of it, you use logic to prove something that is outside of logic. Thus logic is creating non-logic which I don't think can be done. This leads to my personal belief that talking truthfully about the existance of gods is impossible because it is attempting to comprehend that which is by definition above human comprehension.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You simply don't address the question, "who created god" You assume him to be the first cause. YOu dodge it by labeling him supernatural.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Here's the big flaw in your argument: "Sounds a lot like 'God' doesn't it." Hey, maybe it does - but "sounds a lot like" is NOT the equivilent of "is". Or, in simpler terms - it may be a strong argument, but it's not proof. You may rebut and say, "Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" but you'd be wrong - because that could just be some freak in a duck suit. If you're interested, I suggest checking out the philosophical difference between "necessary" and "sufficient".
September 7th, 2006
(0)
I belive in God, but I say you can not prove either way whether he exists or not. By definition, proof contradicts faith, and God offers no hard proof that he exists. Therefore, if we ever found proof of God's existance with no basis on faith, he would technically not exist. PARADOX'D
September 7th, 2006
(0)
and what caused god to be, if god is omnipotent? oh snap!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
mrpie5: If you can believe that there is a creator that was not created then why can't you believe that energy and mass were not created?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Man created God (Not the other way)
September 7th, 2006
(0)
What a waste of time. My rocks DO write term papers you fool. And the CAUSE of me kicking annoying religious people in THEIR rocks is them coming up and bothering me with faulty logic. CAUSALITY FTW!
September 7th, 2006
(0)
i just love how everyone thinks that there astronomers or something of that study very funny im not giving this neting becuz u dont know about the existince of god no one will untill we see with out own eyes thats how everyone is logic in ne way isnt good enough for some ppl ty and thats it
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Man created God (Not the other way) QFE Though I do like the presentation of this site. 4
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Nice try in answering "Who created God?"... But "First Cause" was a phrase that you used. Just because this supernatural force came before the universe does not mean that it was the first thing to "exist" on any plane. It could easily be that there is more than one of said supernatural beings that we are simply not aware of, could it not?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Energy is not in decline you dipsh*t, ORDER is. The first law of thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I stopped watching there and am 1'ing you, because its little scientific fudges like this that people always use to explain things.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
Life can come from non-life. It's happened atleast once. It's not a quick process, and from that intelligence appears.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
So you got a B in philo 101. Should I be impressed? +5 for attempting to bring logic and discussion to the internet. -2 for gaping logic gaps. There have been amazing defenses of theism in the past 60 or so years of philosophy. You should try copying and pasting Kierkegaard instead of your freshman lecture notes.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
interesting
September 7th, 2006
(0)
you make a good case, but this is too serious for a ytmnd, and besides you cant prove that there is or is no god
September 7th, 2006
(0)
1) Life can come from non-life. 2) Intelligence can come from non-intelligence. 3) You have a lot more research to do on the origins of the universe. I'm giving it 3 stars because it's a good try, but not thought out enough. It only works on those ignorant enough that they simply need something "scientificy" to reaffirm their beliefs.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
idk, the only reason i believe their is a god is because how did anything get there in the first place? how is there a universe?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
see you cant use causality to prove god exists, since he was always there
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You don't actually consider this a "proof", do you? Hand that into any logic professor and you're getting an F. +5 stars for Rodney Harrison, but this really is a terrible proof.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
By the way, MasterSitsu tore the SH*T out of you. PWNT.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
meh, nothing that hasn't been said before. although i would like to note the following: you're rebuttal of the "who created god" objection is false. The origins of God are strictly faith related. If you have faith, then you believe God has always been and always will be, however, this is just a belief. NOT a fact as you put forth. non-believers can legitamtely question the origins of god but it ultimately comes down to the fact of whether or not you believe in Him...
September 7th, 2006
(0)
This was a good try to blend science with religion but i see it as flawed. You use the law of causality to say that everything that comes to be has a sufficient prior cause. You then say that there was was a first cause (that started it all) but according to the law that is incorrect. God would have had to have something before him that would have caused him. You use a Scientific law then exempt what you call the first cause. doing so you just broke the law making this assumption impossible.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
You didn't provide evidence of anything, all you did was state unknowns and say, "Well it must have been god then!" Fact is, religion can't be backed up by any amount of science. If you can recognize this and still have faith in something greater than yourself, good for you, but if you have to make up some bullsh*t speculation to try to prove it to yourself and others, then maybe you need to reconsider your choice of faith.
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>