God Thread, Pt. III

[El Gunner]

When it comes to God and all this stuff, I tend to ignore it and not let it disturbe me that much. I juz go on with my life. Enjoy it. Make the most of it.

And when death comes, we'll see

[RedOranje]

Remember, no need to be twats about it (not implying anyone currently is).

Continue.

Previous threads:
Part I
Part II

[VivaStPauli]

I know it's a bit mean, but I just stumbled over this, and thought I'd use it to troll you guys:

[RedOranje]

Atheist one should really say "Let's GET BOMBED on microbrews and talk about outer space." It would fit the joke better.

[VivaStPauli]

Atheist one should really say "Let's GET BOMBED on microbrews and talk about outer space." It would fit the joke better.

I thought they wasted that opportunity as well, but I guess not everyone can be as witty as we are...

[CBarca]

The oatmeal is amazing. Surprised he missed the wit on that one, I would suggest checking out his other articles if you want a good laugh. He's the same guy that made the 'how to suck at your religion' comic posted in this section a bit back.

[Mamad]

Most of Islamic Extremist groups are created by westerns. there is a clear plan in west to make Islam look bad.

There was a group called riggy that kidnapped people and killed them while reading Quran. there are films of what they do. they killed children, soldiers and innocent people of Iran while filming it and reading Quran.

you say they are Islamic extremists? i say they are western puppets. they have nothing to do with Islam.

the real terrorist is the ones who created, helped and supported this group. and guess what? US was the main supporter of them. they confessed this before they all get hanged.

there is nothing about this group you can find in your Media. why? you really don't know why?

this is just a photo of a tape of what they did :



You know what? there is tapes of them talking with BBC. and in that they were called Iranian freedom fighters. i mean seriously?

this is pathetic. US supports terrorist groups that kill my brothers and sisters. and yet Islam is at fault for what people like Riggy do. Riggy, Saddam, Mobarak, that fat ass king Of Saudi, even Bin ladden all were supported by west and specially US.

Sorry to say this, but f**k you ( west governments ) and your freedom you hypocrites.

[VivaStPauli]

U mad at beer & ham, Mamad? :/

[rwo power]

Um, isn't this the God thread and not the extremist politics thread?

[free_cat]

This thread has really gone far ever since I left. Anyways, now I am taking Philosophy classes in uni and this is how the prof simplified Anselm's argument
(1) God is, by definition, perfect.
(2) In order to be perfect, a being must exist.
_____________________________________
(3) God exists (and is perfect).

(1) A perfect being is something for which you cannot think of anything better.
(2) A being that does not exist is something for which you can think of something better.
_____________________________________
(3) In order to be perfect, a being must exist.

MilanDevil in the closed thread talks about the "perfection" argument, which is called the "Ontological Argument". This argument is so famous that it even has a wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

In it, you can see that although this argument can fool you for a while, as it fooled Bertrand Rusell in his youth, if you go deeper, you find that this argument is not logical. If you can imagine something, even if it is perfect, it doesn't necessiraly have to exist. It's a non sequiteur. This argument was refuted long ago by many philosophers as you can see in the entry.

Furthermore, by today's standard of knoweledge, which is scientific knoweledge based in theory, data, facts and experiments, it makes even less of an impact. You just can't make any argument ignoring data, experiment etc. from the real world. It's an infantile argument.

Brlliantly put in a jesus and mo comic comment: "But if God exists then it’s subject to being distorted by gravity, impacts, radiation, etc. Plus being made of matter it would eventually fall victim of entropy. All of which make it not-perfect. So instead of existence being a property of perfection, only non-existent objects can be perfect"

[VivaStPauli]

Also what I said in the other thread. It's just not a very good logical argument.

[Potential]

In it, you can see that although this argument can fool you for a while, as it fooled Bertrand Rusell in his youth

Am I the only one who doesn't even understand this argument? I mean... It doesn't make any sense to me... I can't even understand the logic behind it... And even if I try to make sense of it and try to understand it... I can't...

[free_cat]

In it, you can see that although this argument can fool you for a while, as it fooled Bertrand Rusell in his youth

Am I the only one who doesn't even understand this argument? I mean... It doesn't make any sense to me... I can't even understand the logic behind it... And even if I try to make sense of it and try to understand it... I can't...

No, you aren't. It was hard for me to get it, as for me it doesn't make any sense that god is perfect, much less that something perfect necessarily has to exist. But for a theist, god is perfect and they are very inclined to believe he exist, so the argument makes a lot of sense.

[VivaStPauli]

Well that's not really a logical problem you're having.

That's what I meant by faulty assumptions.

He said as his first argument:
1) God is perfect (which is fine, since it is defined as such)
2) Something has to exist to be perfect (here we already can yell bullshit, since that's already bringing us to the problem of what "perfect" means)

But from those points we can easily say that god must exist in order to be perfect. The whole problem is that nobody knows if god is perfect, it's just something a guy in a desert made up a couple thousand years ago, as far as we know, so that's hardly a proper basis for a sound argumet.

Intrinsically it does make logical sense, but the real argument here would be whether god really is perfect, whether perfection can ever exist, and whether only existing things can be perfect.

Because I can counter the argument like this:
(1) God is perfect
(2) Nothing in existence is perfet
_____________
(3) God isn't in existence, iE doesn't exist.

[stevieg8]

The biggest Terrorist in Middle East is the President of Israel. You won't hear that though

Even as a joke, this is pretty embarrassing - the President of Israel is a figurehead, not really a political role.

[RealGunner]

I wasn't joking. but let's not go offtopic

[Potential]

Actually terrorism is related to this thread, who knows what percentage of terrorist theists account for? I am pretty sure most of us will get within 5% of the actual number just by guessing!

[VivaStPauli]

[RealGunner]

Yea, i am sure you would have preferred to take a piss from your nipples and shit from your navel. Or have Penis on the forehead to use for sex. Or have two penises so you can use one for sex and other for urinating

[VivaStPauli]

Yeah that would've been awesome. Especially having seperate orifices for breathing and drinking would be boss.

[The Messiah]

Yeah that would've been awesome. Especially having seperate orifices for breathing and drinking would be boss.

Youneedtocheckyourself.


Humans are near perfection, the only perfect being is God who created everything in the Universe and Whales didn't evolved from bears, neither did humans from fishes, this are all made up lies for sheeples to follow.

[Die Borussen]

thats how You perceive perfection

im sure animals think they r perfect cause they dont know the meaning of unlimited potential as well as we are aware only of certain elements in our limited conciousness


smart perfect human beings are, making god invisible to hide his nonexistance

[The Messiah]

Proving the existence of God is easy to do, however most atheist understanding of proving is by providing physical evidence of God. Clearly for a number of different reason that will be nearly impossible to do, one of the reason is how time applies to us, as well as different stages of life(semen's, embryo, egg our current state etc) . However This will be another topic.


Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". We must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination.




While many atheist may claim there is no evidence of God, the actual scientific evidence for God's existence is overwhelming, scientifically answering the question, "does God exist?".

According to science there is a Law of Physics called the first Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.



The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, a believers I know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.


Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.



Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible, or Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them(abnormality in humans). Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

Believe it or not, a 5 year old child could be an atheistic scientist's worst nightmare by merely asking him “where did everything come from if God didn't make it?” What that child is actually asking in scientific terms is “how do we have a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by the creation of energy and matter in the closed system of the universe if there is no Creator capable of doing that?”

[RedOranje]

"Humans are near perfection"... according to who?

I mean we have allergies, cancers, aging, genetic flaws that affect just about every part of the body, mental illnesses, chemical imbalances, eye problems, problems, and problems of just about every other imaginable type... all due to INTERNAL issues.

Humans (and all other complex life, for that matter) are absolutely amazing, astounding, awe-inspiring entities but no-where near perfection.

[free_cat]

Yea, i am sure you would have preferred to take a piss from your nipples and shit from your navel. Or have Penis on the forehead to use for sex. Or have two penises so you can use one for sex and other for urinating

What about defecating and urinating through one hole, and sex by another one.

Human body is far from intelligently designed as pointed out by many flaws it has.

[Sponsored content]