{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Noiselesspurse17:
9/7/2015 5:41:31 PM
319
There are no valid arguments for the existence of God
Lately, I've been seeing tons of illogical arguments that christians have been trying to use to prove the existence of God. I haven't seen one valid argument for God, and I'm getting quite tired of destroying the same feeble arguments over and over again, so I thought I'd take the most common ones and take them apart, so that you people can finally stop using them.
[quote][i]You can't prove that God isn't real. [/i][/quote]
This is a logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming the positive (religious people), not us. If you believe God is real, it's your job to provide evidence. Furthermore, we also can't prove that there isn't a magic green monkey flying around Jupiter, but that isn't a valid reason to believe he's there.
[quote][i]The Bible is proof of God[/i][/quote]
No. Just, no. Anyone who uses a Bible verse to support the existence of God is insane. That's like saying that a Spider-Man comic is proof of spider man.
[quote][i]Do you really think that all life could have arisen from a series of coincidences?[/i][/quote]
Anyone who says this needs to do a bit more research. Yes, there were many requirements for life to arise on earth, but you're not considering how large the universe is, and how many times shit has gone wrong. Statistically speaking, the natural evolution of life on earth is very possible, and there is almost certainly other life out there.
[quote][i]Well, science doesn't fully understand 'X' yet, therefore God must have done it.[/i][/quote]
Just because we don't understand something yet doesn't mean we won't in the future, and to instantly assume that everything is Gods work is a very closed-minded way of looking at things.
[quote][i]It's called having faith.[/i][/quote]
No. Faith is the intentional suppression of critical thinking skills. It is in no way a valid reason to believe anything.
[quote][i]The second law of thermodynamics states that systems become less and less organized. That means that evolution and the Big Bang go against this law. Therefore, God is responsible for the creation of earth and life on earth[/i][/quote]
This isn't true. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to isolated (closed) systems. The earth is in no way a closed system. This argument really just shows ignorance on whoever uses it's part.
[quote][i]Theres nothing to lose by not believing in him, and eternal paradise if you do. (Pascal's Wager).[/i][/quote]
This is a horrible argument for a number of reasons. First, who says the Christian God is real? There are hundreds of different Gods out there, so why not believe in them too, just to be safe? Secondly, do you really think an omniscient God won't figure out that the only reason you believed in him was because you wanted to go to heaven? Pascal's wagers is one of the worst arguments ever. Period.
Note: This next one was actually an argument on this very thread. Try not to die of laughter.
[quote][i]http://thetruthwins.com/archives/dna-results-for-the-nephilim-skulls-in-peru-are-in-and-the-results-are-absolutely-shocking
We have angel skulls, therefore God exists.
[/i][/quote]
This one made me laugh so hard. The link basically just says that the skulls were from an unknown human-like creature, probably some sort of primate. The guy who sent me this instantly jumped from "unknown human-like mammal" to "Angel skulls". I literally can't even right now.
These are only a few of the arguments that I can remember off the top of my head, but I know I'm missing a ton. Post them below, and I'll destroy them and add them to the OP. Help me spread education and awareness to Offtopic, one post at a time.
Purse, out.
-
23 Replies[quote]The Arabic word kalam literally means "speech," but came to denote a certain type of philosophical theology—a type containing demonstrations that the world could not be infinitely old and must therefore have been created by God. This sort of demonstration has had a long and wide appeal among both Christians and Muslims. Its form is simple and straightforward. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. Grant the first premise. (Most people—outside of asylums and graduate schools would consider it not only true, but certainly and obviously true.) Is the second premise true? Did the universe—the collection of all things bounded by space and time—begin to exist? This premise has recently received powerful support from natural science—from so-called Big Bang Cosmology. But there are philosophical arguments in its favor as well. Can an infinite task ever be done or completed? If, in order to reach a certain end, infinitely many steps had to precede it, could the end ever be reached? Of course not—not even in an infinite time. For an infinite time would be unending, just as the steps would be. In other words, no end would ever be reached. The task would—could—never be completed. But what about the step just before the end? Could that point ever be reached? Well, if the task is really infinite, then an infinity of steps must also have preceded it. And therefore the step just before the end could also never be reached. But then neither could the step just before that one. In fact, no step in the sequence could be reached, because an infinity of steps must always have preceded any step; must always have been gone through one by one before it. The problem comes from supposing that an infinite sequence could ever reach, by temporal succession, any point at all. Now if the universe never began, then it always was. If it always was, then it is infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed—one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before—in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point—for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point—or any point before it. So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite. In other words, the universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being, a Creator.[/quote] Thoughts?
