Why should I believe in the God?

[HashiraMadara]

True, I just don't believe in such a "high one" when there are better solutions out there.

Oh... what???? Didn't you say you believe in God?

 

[Deadlift]

Are you saying all creation in the world God's doing? Can you prove it first?

Sorry to contradict a fellow Naruto fan, but if God's existence could have been proven or disproved threads like these wouldn't even have been made.

However to give you some interesting material you can check Kalam Cosmological Argument and the famous 5 reasons of William Lane Craig

 

[Deadlift]

Oh... what???? Didn't you say you believe in God?

Did Uzumaki Menma steal your account? XD

 

[Darth AniCetuS]

Sorry to contradict a fellow Naruto fan, but if God's existence could have been proven or disproved threads like these wouldn't even have been made.

However to give you some interesting material you can check Kalam Cosmological Argument and the famous 5 reasons of William Lane Craig

Its alright... everyone has their own opinion and one should respect other's view on a subject whether they agree or disagree with them. With that said, as you yourself said that God's existence can't be proved for certain and from what I've observed, I've come to the realization that God doesn't exist. I am not trying to change the believers, just expressing my opinion.

 

[HashiraMadara]

Did Uzumaki Menma steal your account? XD

nah bro, This kid Transitx is very good. maybe he can show me something I never knew. That's I am stretching the limit of this topic. I hate to be a shaky believer in deism XDXDXD I want firm belief MAYBE with his confidence he has indefinite knowledge I aspire to be like him XDXDXD I am lost cause former Muslim, former Christian, former Zen Buddhist, former traditionalist, former Atheist... XDXD Deism makes the most sense. I want to further my belief

 

[Marin]

Nope. I prefer not to lose sleep over this topic because it's a matter of 'belief' and interpretations and I don't have enough missionary zeal for such topics.

You say the atheist lie, atheists will say you lie, you find them unsalvagable, they don't think there is anything to be salvaged by forcing themselves to act as if they believe. It's a stalemate and something the God can handle himself if he is. In the grand scheme of universe, if he is all that worried over whether a random human on the Earth believes him or not, he is not much of a god.

I'll say it more clearly this time, I never said atheists are unsalvagable. I said atheism, as a view, is unsalvagable. Please read my posts properly before you point out problems.

Though, looking back at that post, "lie" is a wrong term. More like stating that which isn't true.

Scientific evidence like what? Please do tell, this time don't bring ontological arguments as I have made them not usable here...
post above[/B][/COLOR]

... please tell me what we spent the last few hours talking about?

Lool Got ya, see how it feels. You throw me a list with close to no explanation at all and you expect a clear answer :sdo:

MY POINT IS WHEN AN ARGUMENT IS BASED ON NON TESTABLE STUFF, never say "it being wrong is improbable" :sdo: as the string theory I just demonstrated. You are more wrong than right since you posses no testable fundamentals...

So I am like her below still waiting on such post.

Where do you get the idea that the arguments I mentioned cannot be verified? All you asked of me was to share some of them. You never asked me to explain them and are now insisting that they aren't possible to affirm without saying why. Specify the argument you have a problem with, tell me which premise is troubling and I'll answer. We're just beating the bush like this.

 

[Marin]

Oh... what???? Didn't you say you believe in God?

I'm convinced you're trolling me now.

 

[HashiraMadara]

I'll say it more clearly this time, I never said atheists are unsalvagable. I said atheism, as a view, is unsalvagable. Please read my posts properly before you point out problems.

Though, looking back at that post, "lie" is a wrong term. More like stating that which isn't true.



... please tell me what we spent the last few hours talking about?



Where do you get the idea that the arguments I mentioned cannot be verified? All you asked of me was to share some of them. You never asked me to explain them and are now insisting that they aren't possible to affirm without saying why. Specify the argument you have a problem with, tell me which premise is troubling and I'll answer. We're just beating the bush like this.

Okay down to business:

Anselm's ontological argument, Platinga's modal ontology, Kalam, Leibniz's contingency, Paley's watchmaker, fine-tuning arguments,

lets avoid these at all cost, we'll grow grey hair arguing about them... They are pretty much impossible to prove nor disprovable

arguments from biological information, arguments from probability - just to name a few.

My focus is on these:

* arguments from biological information:- such as?
* arguments from probability... e.g?

Outside Topic: Probability???? please do explain How does probability proves or disproves anything in general other than talking about likelyhood...

 

[Professor Finesser]

You shouldn't have to /thread

 

[HashiraMadara]

I'm convinced you're trolling me now.

Nah bro, why would I salvage the worst theory in the world(string theory) in an argument if I was trolling you

 

[HashiraMadara]

You must be registered for see images

 

[Avani 🥈]

I'll say it more clearly this time, I never said atheists are unsalvagable. I said atheism, as a view, is unsalvagable. Please read my posts properly before you point out problems.

OK I will make the correction:


You say the atheist lie, atheists will say you lie, you find their views unsalvagable, they don't think there is anything to be salvaged by forcing themselves to act as if they believe. It's a stalemate and something the God can handle himself if he is. In the grand scheme of universe, if he is all that worried over whether a random human on the Earth believes him or not, he is not much of a god.

It doesn't change much.

Though, looking back at that post, "lie" is a wrong term. More like stating that which isn't true.

'Tuh-MAY-toh' VS 'tuh-MAH-toh'

 

[Flaw]

What kind of question is this, and how did it breed 8 pages of actual debate:|

If you need reasons from others to believe in God, then you don't really need to believe in God to begin with :elmo:

 

[Avani 🥈]

What kind of question is this, and how did it breed 8 pages of actual debate:|

If you need reasons from others to believe in God, then you don't really need to believe in God to begin with :elmo:

We were bored.

 

[Deadlift]

'Tuh-MAY-toh' VS 'tuh-MAH-toh'

Seems reasonable.. O_O

 

[Marin]

OK I will make the correction:

You say the atheist lie, atheists will say you lie, you find their views unsalvagable, they don't think there is anything to be salvaged by forcing themselves to act as if they believe. It's a stalemate and something the God can handle himself if he is. In the grand scheme of universe, if he is all that worried over whether a random human on the Earth believes him or not, he is not much of a god.

It doesn't change much.

It changes drastically because the original sense held the context of personal salvation (or rather lack of it) playing a stand-or-fall role in my argument for deism, implying some sort of unwarranted salvation system. Now, we're talking about how justified one's view is and here even if one chooses to disagree unless they can back their disagreement up they're only deepening the ignorance necessary to hold on to intellectual bancrupcy.

It's only a stalemate if it's your goal to convince the other side to something.

'Tuh-MAY-toh' VS 'tuh-MAH-toh'

Is this supposed to imply indifference? Because it's a failed attempt.

Okay down to business:

lets avoid these at all cost, we'll grow grey hair arguing about them... They are pretty much impossible to prove nor disprovable

My focus is on these:

* arguments from biological information:- such as?
* arguments from probability... e.g?

Outside Topic: Probability???? please do explain How does probability proves or disproves anything in general other than talking about likelyhood...

Nice try. You wish to hear arguments for God but choose to avoid any dialogue on the most important ones. As I already said, only through cumulative effort do these arguments form evidence for God. It's a puzzle which stops working if one piece is missing.

Also, your lack of understanding of the arguments mentioned betrays you again. Probabilistic arguments are those which assert that one option is more probable than the other therefore tipping the scale to it's favor. Likelihood (probability) is the key.

If you don't understand this why did you lie about knowing these arguments in the previous post? Be as it may, I don't have any particular interest in participating in a debate in which my options are restricted right from the start.

 

[Illuminater]

What kind of question is this, and how did it breed 8 pages of actual debate:|

If you need reasons from others to believe in God, then you don't really need to believe in God to begin with :elmo:

That doesn't make sense. God wants people to find the light and learn about him and become Christains. you need a reason to believe in him in the first place. That's why their are preachers and Christains that go out and preach to other people.

A site like this which supports Christianity even gives you 3 reasons to believe in God.

You must be registered for see links

im just asking for a reason :/

 

[JENchuuriki]

If an ISIS member is here, they won't argue anymore.. they will probably behead or shoot or throw bomb to anyone who doesn't agree with them

 

[Avani 🥈]

It changes drastically because the original sense held the context of personal salvation (or rather lack of it) playing a stand-or-fall role in my argument for deism, implying some sort of unwarranted salvation system. Now, we're talking about how justified one's view is and here even if one chooses to disagree unless they can back their disagreement up they're only deepening the ignorance necessary to hold on to intellectual bancrupcy.

It's only a stalemate if it's your goal to convince the other side to something.

Nope. It means that you insist if people ignore your evidence or don't find it convincing they are lying or being less than "truthful" or not speaking the "truth" it's your personal conviction and exactly the same thing can be implied by the other side. In an attempt to justify yourself, you have started to question their intellect, their ethics ( not being truthful) and calling them ignorant. Was that your goal?( since you say your goal is not to convince them)

Is this supposed to imply indifference? Because it's a failed attempt.

Nope. You said : "though, looking back at that post, "lie" is a wrong term. More like stating that which isn't true. "

It means you are still saying the same thing is being referred to using different words. So basically just being creative with words and yet still calling them liars. For truth, in this case, is subjective.

 

[Marin]

Nope. It means that you insist if people ignore your evidence or don't find it convincing they are lying or being less than "truthful" or not speaking the "truth" it's your personal conviction and exactly the same thing can be implied by the other side. In an attempt to justify yourself, you have started to question their intellect, their ethics ( not being truthful) and calling them ignorant. Was that your goal?( since you say your goal is not to convince them)

Nope. You said : "though, looking back at that post, "lie" is a wrong term. More like stating that which isn't true. "

It means you are still saying the same thing is being referred to using different words. So basically just being creative with words and yet still calling them liars. For truth, in this case, is subjective.

You got it wrong. There is a difference between lying and saying that which isn't true. Lying is an act of stating that which isn't truth while being aware it isn't true for the purpose of deceiving others. Saying that which isn't true can be simply saying something that isn't true but one considers to be true or doesn't know it is false. There is a huge difference because the first one implies malicious intent, intellectual dishonesty and a lack of morality while the other simply implies a lack of knowledge. I never write something just to be creative with words.

Due to the above, no, I don't consider atheists (or adherents of any other worldview) dishonest or corrupt simply because they say that which isn't true. As for whether the notion of there being no evidence for my view is true or false is not at all a subjective matter as you'd like to think. Evidence is anything one uses to support the claim. Any argument, any discovery, any testimony serves as evidence. The only point of contention is whether this evidence is good or bad (strong or weak) and depending on which is it one has the right to overlook it or not.

Thus to say "there is no evidence for God" is to state that which isn't true because evidence most certainly exists. It's only a matter of whether it does it's job adequately or not. Now do you understand?