Why should I believe in the God?

[Avani]

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?

Definitely much less ambiguous and annoying.

I wonder if the " evidence " bit would be more effective if there weren't so many cooked up evidences used by religious people to hype the humans they want to present as divine for centuries.

 

[Marin]

Definitely much less ambiguous and annoying.

I wonder if the " evidence " bit would be more effective if there weren't so many cooked up evidences used by religious people to hype the humans they want to present as divine for centuries.

I'm not sure what kind of evidence you're reffering to but the ones I usually bring out don't at all deal with human figures. The only thing that comes close would be defending the historicity of Jesus Christ, which again isn't at all hyping up but various methods of historical analysis.

 

[HashiraMadara]

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.

Now you see what I have to live with it's okay for you start building a castle on air, removing an religious script, extinguishing any testable protocol and remaining off grid throughout the entire argument. :sdo: With you not telling me anything(dodging bullets) about your starting point is no different from me dividing by 0 :sdo: I will never get to the bottom of this...

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.

Nah WRONG, that applies only on the Jury and on quantum physics not on "relative" objects. e.g. Telling me probable chances of me dying are 100% is close to not helpful because it's a given. Other than that throw probability to insurances not cosmology(except event horizon of course =D)

If you don't understand this why did you lie about knowing these arguments in the previous post?

Again, you think this argument would ever end if I let you start at ontological argument. If I let you use those arguments we might as well stop the whole thing.

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.

Now you see? not telling me your standing point on this leaves behaving like a headless chicken. I need your staring point before we can even indulge our selves savouring this topic





Now to your starting point question number 1: Do you believe in deity?

 

[Marin]

Now you see what I have to live with it's okay for you start building a castle on air, removing an religious script, extinguishing any testable protocol and remaining off grid throughout the entire argument. :sdo: With you not telling me anything(dodging bullets) about your starting point is no different from me dividing by 0 :sdo: I will never get to the bottom of this...

I don't understand a thing of what you just said.

Nah WRONG, that applies only on the Jury and on quantum physics not on "relative" objects. e.g. Telling me probable chances of me dying are 100% is close to not helpful because it's a given. Other than that throw probability to insurances not cosmology(except event horizon of course =D)

Define these relative objects. Then define these arbitary lines you're pulling left and right. As it is now, you're just writing gibberish. Probability is applicable everywhere.

Again, you think this argument would ever I end if I let you start at ontological argument. If I let use those arguments we might as well stop the whole thing.

In the previous reply I asked you to point out the problems you have with a certain premise or an argument as a whole so we can clear it up. Instead you went off to simply repeat how they're not possible to demonstrate, again going in a circle. If you wish to continue like this then yes, let's stop the whole thing. I don't know what would there be to stop as we haven't really said anything yet. We're literally talking about nothing at this point.

Now you see? not telling me your standing point on this leaves behaving like a headless chicken. I need your staring point before we can even indulge our selves savouring this topic

Now to your starting point question number 1: Do you believe in deity?

I said this once before, I do debates not hearings. After 3 pages I still have no idea what you're insisting we talk about and the direction is all but clear. Stop asking me meaningless questions I've already answered and get to the point. I won't stay so generous with my time and patience for much longer.

 

[Lonegamer]

God threads are the worst threads on nb.

 

[Avani]

I'm not sure what kind of evidence you're reffering to but the ones I usually bring out don't at all deal with human figures. The only thing that comes close would be defending the historicity of Jesus Christ, which again isn't at all hyping up but various methods of historical analysis.

I wasn't referring to you or any particular religion.

 

[HashiraMadara]

I said this once before, I do debates not hearings.

This is my style of debating :sdo: I ask you something you give an answer. It's circular argument.
You're the third one to hear it as sort of "bullying" :|

For example my style is "circular confirmation" please by all means don't see it at hearing. I need you to tell me your points not "Euler's views" etc. To me that means I am not discussing with you but them if that's the case.
.
.
.
.
.
One more time: Do you believe in God?

 

[Marin]

This is my style of debating :sdo: I ask you something you give an answer. It's circular argument.
You're the third one to hear it as sort of "bullying" :|

For example my style is "circular confirmation" please by all means don't see it at hearing. I need you to tell me your points not "Euler's views" etc. To me that means I am not discussing with you but them if that's the case.
.
.
.
.
.
One more time: Do you believe in God?

Your style comes off as nothing more than making unclear, hard to read, statements, refusing to clarify them and forcing me to play along. Sorry, but it's not really what one would consider an appropriate way to have a discussion. Also, this isn't a place to have a personal converstation about me and you. Read the title: "Why should I believe in God?" as dull as it is the question is basically asking for a reason to believe. It is only fitting we discuss reasons for such a belief. No more, no less. Everything else is off-topic.

If you insist on going off-tangent, make a thread or send messages. Next time you come at me with unrelated stuff, you won't get a reply.

 

[HashiraMadara]

Your style comes off as nothing more than making unclear, hard to read, statements, refusing to clarify them and forcing me to play along. Sorry, but it's not really what one would consider an appropriate way to have a discussion. Also, this isn't a place to have a personal converstation about me and you. Read the title: "Why should I believe in God?" as dull as it is the question is basically asking for a reason to believe. It is only fitting we discuss reasons for such a belief. No more, no less. Everything else is off-topic.

If you insist on going off-tangent, make a thread or send messages. Next time you come at me with unrelated stuff, you won't get a reply.

Ran away again like last time (redirecting the argument) third thread now this is happening


Okay seeing that you refuse to make it about you, style change. Let's start from scratch: See me as the OP:- Why should I believe in God.... *waiting*

 

[Marin]

Ran away again like last time (redirecting the argument) third thread now this is happening


Okay seeing that you refuse to make it about you, style change. Let's start from scratch: See me as the OP:- Why should I believe in God.... *waiting*

Ok, let's start again. *clears throat*

Assuming we're talking about God in the sense of the greatest one, an all-powerful, all-knowing being, the reason you should go with the idea is that there is more evidence for it than against it. Some of the reasons for God are:

1) God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe
2) God is the best explanation for the contingent nature of the universe
3) God is the best explanation for the design we see in nature

Assuming the above 3 notions are true you have enough grounds to believe in a deistic God, as they'd give you reasonable evidence for a timeless, spaceless, powerful, all-knowing designer/creator. This is enough to satisfy your deistic needs. Assuming, ofcourse, you wish to believe in a theistic version of God, additional reasons include:

4) Justified moral judgement
5) Purpose of life
6) Solution to suffering

I'll let you choose which ground to cover first and which claim we should test. This time, keep it coherent and straight-forward.

 

[Flaw]

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 :/

See that sort of army enrollment-type approach to faith is one of the reasons why religious clusters are so competitive to the point of conflict :| Join this religion, here's a list of benefits and an attractive salary package :elmo: Going by this logic, the reason provided by ISIS would be not being shot in the head. I'm saying you start believing in God because you need to, not because others tell you you need to, not even preachers :elmo:

The question here is why do you want to believe enough to ask for reasons ? Are you bored with being an atheist ? :sdo:

Preachers are there to offer guidance after you've already decided you believe in God.

 

[V h o]

Why do you need convincing from others for something like religion? Either you believe or don't or something in the middle:lol

 

[HashiraMadara]

Ok, let's start again. *clears throat*

Assuming we're talking about God in the sense of the greatest one, an all-powerful, all-knowing being, the reason you should go with the idea is that there is more evidence for it than against it. Some of the reasons for God are:

I don't like the word evidence for this because if they were rightfully so, we wouldn't be even having this conversation...

1) God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe
2) God is the best explanation for the contingent nature of the universe
3) God is the best explanation for the design we see in nature

I see... you're belong to IDT(Intelligent Design Theory)

1.) God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe:
* Point 1 we don't know the whats, hows and whys the origins of the universe. <== From this you concluded in any of which we do not clearly understand or haven't discovered should be credited to the most high?

2.) God is the best explanation for the contingent nature of the universe:
* point 2 This only becomes of relevance if you answer point 1.

3.) God is the best explanation for the design we see in nature:
* Again point 1 must be answered before indulging on this 1.

Interest sake, if He is all powerful can he interfere with His creation?

Assuming the above 3 notions are true you have enough grounds to believe in a deistic God, as they'd give you reasonable evidence for a timeless, spaceless, powerful, all-knowing designer/creator. This is enough to satisfy your deistic needs. Assuming, ofcourse, you wish to believe in a theistic version of God, additional reasons include:

4) Justified moral judgement
5) Purpose of life
6) Solution to suffering

I'll let you choose which ground to cover first and which claim we should test. This time, keep it coherent and straight-forward.

This only works against atheist...

 

[Marin]

I don't the word evidence for this because if they were rightfully so, we wouldn't be even having this conversation...

Wrong. If we had proof we wouldn't be having this conversation. Evidence is simply that which one uses to support his assertion.

I see... you're belong to IDT(Intelligent Design Theory)

Is there no end to your assumptions? I'm not a part of a pseudoscientific movement such as IDT. Unlike them I do not oppose evolution and the like and certainly do not conform to the creationist norms.

1.) God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe:
* Point 1 we don't know the whats, hows and whys the origins of the universe. <== From this you concluded in any of which we do not clearly understand or haven't discovered should be credited to the most high?

What exactly are you objecting to here? Is your objection that we can't make claims about the origins of the universe? Well, that just ignores cosmology and discredits science as a whole. This is particulary ironic since you demand scientific proof for so many things. If this is the case you'd better make up your mind.

If not the above what else are you objecing to? The finitude of the universe? The casual principle? The choice of the best explanation? You'll need to state your objections more clearly.

2.) God is the best explanation for the contingent nature of the universe:
* point 2 This only becomes of relevance if you answer point 1.

Not at all. Even if the first point completely goes ignored we can discuss this one without a problem. (Which is why I put these as separate arguments rather than the same one.)

3.) God is the best explanation for the design we see in nature:
* Again point 1 must be answered before indulging on this 1.

Nope. Even if there do turn out to be better explanations for the beginning of the universe, the topic of apparent design is not cleared by default.

Interest sake, if He is all powerful can he interfere with His creation?

Ontological much? Either way, off-topic.

This only works against atheist...

OP is an atheist. To quote you:

"see me as the OP"

It would appear to me that there is a fundamental lack of understanding of what I'm laying out here. Instead of rushing to objections right away, feel free to ask what you don't understand. If we're to be honest atleast.

 

[HashiraMadara]

Wrong. If we had proof we wouldn't be having this conversation. Evidence is simply that which one uses to support his assertion.

I won't take it as evidence, no ways

Is there no end to your assumptions? I'm not a part of a pseudoscientific movement such as IDT. Unlike them I do not oppose evolution and the like and certainly do not conform to the creationist norms.

Using the complexity of universe structure as a proof of God's existence to me means I will throw you into that category

What exactly are you objecting to here?

I am saying "just because there is no scientifical proof, I repeat SCIENTIFICAL PROOF it doesn't mean we should credit the most high as the creator... "

Is your objection that we can't make claims about the origins of the universe? Well, that just ignores cosmology and discredits science as a whole. This is particular ironic since you demand scientific proof for so many things. If this is the case you'd better make up your mind.

Tell me how many physics laws have I ignored especially cosmological ones I will buy you a premium right now :|

The finitude of the universe?

This peaked my interest

Ontological much? Either way, off-topic.

Tell me my friend, as much as I labelled it as off topic. This point is the most important. It is where we differ in our beliefs: Can the creator interfere with his creation?

It would appear to me that there is a fundamental lack of understanding of what I'm laying out here. Instead of rushing to objections right away, feel free to ask what you don't understand. If we're to be honest atleast.

 

[Marin]

I won't take it as evidence, no ways

Stay in denial then. Just don't cry next time about how desperate your position is.

Using the complexity of universe structure as a proof of God's to me means I will throw you into that category

1) That's not what I did
2) By doing so you end up a bigot

I am saying "just because there is no scientifical proof, I repeat SCIENTIFICAL PROOF it doesn't mean we should credit the most high as the creator... "

1) You don't know the difference between proof and evidence
2) Science is also theoretical, so again, insisting on solely experimental support is unscientific

Also, I never mentioned god of the gaps so that's a strawman.

Tell me how many physics laws have I ignored especially cosmological ones I will buy you a premium right now :|

Noone mentioned physics (which you seem to have an unhealthy obsession for). Rather, you're ignoring all the knowledge we currently hold on cosmology thus discrediting science.

This peaked my interest

I don't care. I asked you where your objection lays.

Tell me my friend, as much as I labelled it as off topic. This point is the most important. It is where we differ in our beliefs: Can the creator interfere with his creation?

This point has nothing to do with the topic. Even more so if we're making a case for a God that doesn't intervene.

I see you're taking this oh-so seriously, so goodbye. Call me when you can make a serious argument.

 

[HashiraMadara]

* Science is also theoretical, so again, insisting on solely experimental support is unscientific
* Rather, you're ignoring all the knowledge we currently hold on cosmology thus discrediting science.

What laws/knowledge have I ignored :|:|:|:|

Noone mentioned physics (which you seem to have an unhealthy obsession for).

Actually I specialise in Maths

This point has nothing to do with the topic. Even more so if we're making a case for a God that doesn't intervene.

This point is exactly on topic because how do mortals calculate or formulate "laws" of "physics" when (if he could interfere) the creator can just change them at will(so far they seem to be withholding with no breakages...

 

[Nilla]

Understanding the proof requires knowing a bit of logic and philosophy and my terrible English doesn't allow me to explain the whole proof,
I know famous proofs for the existence of god(like continuity of cause and effect I'm sure you know it), but to be honest if we look for a straight and undoubtable proof to believe the god, we won't succeed and the reason is simple , the universe that god belongs to(just like our soul) is not limited to time, material and physics laws and has an extra dimension and we are not able to master its properties till the time we die. You can't define a surface when all you have is a line. If we assume there's a god and whatever in the religious book is true, in religious books god guarantees rational arguments will remain true even in the afterlife universe and our knowledge would be expanded ( without contradictions with previous ones). And also we define god as a kind of "infinite" thing it's just like math adding dimensions will not change the state of being infinite. so we can kinda trust our proofs.
Believing in god and reminding his existence , knowing the whole world is his creation and is settled for us brought up a wonderful feeling and also knowing anything that is tormenting us is also under his control and his justice gives us hope when we are disappointed and this kind of feelings..

 

[Sasuke tyeezy]

Tbh it sounds like a load of...

You must be registered for see images

Can anyone else prove God's existence to me or give me a reason?...

If you don't believe then fine, no one is forcing you but bear in mind that if he is real then you'll be very regretful. Nonbelievers usually only believe God's existence when something inexplicable happens no one else nor their experiences will convince you.

 

[Inch]

If you're bored enough to rustle jimmies like this, you need jesus