Now these here are some partly valid arguments. The invalid part which you didn’t cover is that humans can do deductive logic - that is why mathematics most always turns out one way. However, you were right in that inductive logic is and has always been more disputed. It always involves some form of intuition, which naturally, can differ between humans. So, if I am allowed to rephrase your general inquisition (to a more or less accurate one), what makes God different from any other inductive logic?
Simple. By using empirical data, then inductive logic, and finally deductive logic, we can prove trivial physical theorems, for example, that are also very intuitive - thus, it proves that our intuition is more or less consistent for these types of problems. However, God has yet no empirical data->inductive logic->deductive logic conclusion in favour of God, even though God appears intuitive for many. Thus, because this sequence is consistent for everything regarding reality and intuitive for certain things in reality, but not consistent for God, we can conclude that it is most sensible to follow the logical sequence rather than God. In layman’s terms - logic allows two thread ends to meet up and confirm each other in reality; God has yet no logical derivation; therefore, it is most sensible and consistent to follow the logical system rather than God.
You want data look at the Bible, also you havn’t proved i’m using a computer and not a laptop.
The bible contains insufficient and invalid evidence. It does not constitute evidence for God.
I do not have any evidence at the momeny to discern what type of computer interface you are using. I don’t see what sort of conclusion you can draw from the fact that I don’t have any evidence for this, however.
Dear goodness… The ignorance on both sides of this thread is astounding (and Bombax I swear if you say that that statement is a logical fallacy, I think I will cry. You know very well that a very detailed post of mine is coming that contains evidence for that statement. It is a rule of logic that you must wait for the full argument to be made before claiming there are fallacies in it’s logic.). My post should be up tonight or tomorrow morning, and it will illumine many of you, I’m sure.
I’m not a biologist, but to me that simply seems due to naming conventions! If there are animals between today’s species, these animals would be a new ‘species’ (ad infinitum).
@Bombax, it surprises me you still call yourself an agnostic after reading TGD. Do you not agree that by Dawkin’s definition (‘The poverty of agnosticism’) it seems more appropriate to call oneself an atheist in the same manner I consider myself an atheist with regard to the teapot circling the sun (and not an agnostic).
Indeed, but I feel that it is necessary to call oneself agnostic, to align consistently. In effect, my agnosticism gives the same look on everyday-life as atheism, however. A meaningful phrase to me would be “I do not truly know whether a God exists, however, there has been no valid evidence so far for God’s existence - thus, I will not live my life to worship mentioned deity, even though I do not know for absolutely sure.”
Thinking it over, since calling oneself agnostic seems to only create confusion and may seem like a ‘false concession’ to theist, while atheism may seem to some overly confident or even belief-system-like (which actually is not true given it’s definition), I came up with ‘agnostic atheist’, which (how could it be different) appeared to exist already (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism). This expression, to me, seems to suit Dawkin’s (or science) position better than either agnosticism or atheism and seems less likely to create confusion (I do realize this is what many atheists actually mean when they call themselves atheists).
I often prefer to look at atheism in the way it has been used before our current age, and as supported by the Greek language and literature.
Even in the bible, “atheist” is consistently translated to “unbeliever”. The same can be found in Plato’s republic, during the trial of Socrates. This is clearly different from the current dictionary definition that appears in every English dictionary I have checked. Dictionary definitions follow usage, and not history.
Thus it becomes a simple matter of “Do you believe in God?” - there are only two answers (yes, and no). If you are unsure if such a being exists, the answer is still no. Such an answer does not deny the possibility, it only denies that you currently believe in such a thing.
By my usage, all agnostics are atheists. The word “agnostic” is a response against the vilification of atheism by theologians, but I would rather take back our word; just as homosexuals and American blacks have taken insults and made them an identifying word of pride. Infidel (also, “unbeliever”) has a nice ring to it, too. 
It’s true (shrugs) my point seemed a lot smarter when i typed the question, my point was going to be that just because there is no logical evidence of something doesn’t mean it is false. I guess if your going to argue with a Christian about the Lord God almighty you can’t be completly logical, there are lots of things that christians can’t explain that we credit to the fact that God is an omnipotent being with way more intelligence then we as humans have.
This post was my opinion, i was not trying to debate
Oh do explain what trivial physical theorems are my dear Bombax? God is not different to any other inductive logic theorem, it’s all flawed If I’m not mistaken, inductive logic requires a base case, which itself is an assumption.
My answer is I don’t know
I know that some people have been frustrated by this whole conversation, but I’m really enjoying it! It’s given me a chance to use my brain and to really think about what I believe and why I believe it!
Well, we can toss this back and forth all we want, but neither of us can give irrefutable evidence for or against God; we’re playing hot potato, and neither of us is likely to give up unless we call an impasse here. The best that we can do is provide reasons whether or not it is logical to believe that there is a god. I’ve provided a reason (and reasoning as to why I believe that reason is logical, seen below), and I’d be interested to read any sort of opposing line of reasoning (I’m a big fan of syllogisms) that you would be willing to provide.
This is not a non sequitur unless you take it out of context, which is what you’ve done here. In “for any such…” Aquinas is setting up an example that he expounds upon in the sentences that follow it:
As you can see, Aquinas was merely showing the reader that “without the cause, the effect does not follow,” and preparing the reader to understand why “the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity”. This reason, Aquinas clearly states in the last sentence, is that if there were an infinte regression of causes, there would be no definable first cause or final effect, which we know would not make sense. (To use my example, to have an infinite number of perpetually falling dominoes does not make logical sense; there is a definitive start and a definitive end to the chain of falling dominoes). Thus, there is no non sequitur; the reason why “the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity” is that “there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case.”
As I stated earlier when replying to EllyEve, I agree that the use of the term “God” could easily be interpreted as a sentimental fallacy on the part of Aquinas, but in reality it is not. “God” is a word that connotes the Christian perception of “God”, but this was not Aquinas’s intent. Later in his works, he wrote other proofs that attempted to verify that this “God” that he proved to exist must necessarily be the all-knowing, loving Christian God. Logically, if he felt the need to philosophically prove that this “God” that he mentions in his Argument from Causality was in fact the Christian God, then he did not believe that his Argument necessitated such a “God”.
In other words, Aquinas used the word “God” as a placeholder word for the being or force (necessitated by the fact that infinite regression is illogical) that was the first, efficient, uncaused cause. He could have just as easily used words such as “Allah,” “Jehovah,” “Shiva,” or any other words that connote an all-powerful, infinite being capable of being this “uncaused cause”; regardless of what name you give to it, the fact remains that something or someone must exist that has such a capability. If Aquinas was guilty of sentimental fallacy, it was only because of word choice, not intent.
This sentence led into an explanation of how if it is logical to assume that if infinite regression is illogical, then an uncaused cause is both logical and probable. As I’ve stated before, this “God” is not necessarily the Christian God, but this “God” must exist because nothing else is capable of being an “uncaused cause.”
As for the Big Bang theory, yes, it could have happened. I would even go so far as to say that it probably DID happen. But from what I’ve read, the Big Bang originated from a singularity (the science of which I really, really don’t want to try to type out here. Please just Google it). Singularities are (at least in theory) creatable, in that they can be formed following the collapse of a star. If a singularity is causable, then a singularity could not have been the “first, uncaused cause”. It’s a good and plausible theory, and you are right in saying that it is supported by scientific evidence, but the Big Bang does not remove the necessity for the “uncaused cause.” And as I covered in discussing the “burden of proof,” there is no definitive proof for OR against the existence of God, so it’s pointless to make demands for irrefutable evidence one way or the other.
Depends on what you mean by “explaining the existence of God”. If you mean to ask whether this statement was meant to prove that God EXISTS, in the same way that Aquinas was attempting to prove that God exists, then no. I do, however, believe that it explained something essential about God. In my analogy, I explained how it was logical that God could be an entity outside of the rules and logic of the universe we live in, much like a video game programmer is not bound to the rules and logic of the game that he creates.
You didn’t answer the question, here. Are you implying that you wish all believers to understand that they are being illogical?
This puzzled me for a while as well; it seemed really wrong that someone should go to hell simply because they hadn’t heard about God. Crappy deal, right? In talking to a priest, though, I learned that we Catholics DON’T believe that. Instead, we believe that, should a person who hadn’t ever been exposed to religion (and they do exist in pretty large numbers, I was told) the person would be judged according to their overall actions. Natural law (the basic premise being that it is wrong to harm another person) is something built into us, and if they do their best not to break it, then they, too, can get to heaven. You don’t have to be Catholic or even know about God, so long as you live the best life that you can! We didn’t get into an explanation of more complicated situations (example, what if someone had a bad experience caused by a church leader that drove them away from the faith?), but the way I understand it, a person must CHOOSE Hell through their actions in order to go there. It’s a fair system.
The answer lies in free will. In order to truly love something, you have to be able to choose it. If it is forced upon you, then you may come to like it, but you’ll never be able to TRULY love it. If you awoke and found yourself married to someone, with no chance of divorce, could you truly love them? No, because they were forced upon you. So, because God loves us and wants us to love him in return (since we’re using the Christian model of God), he gives us free will – the ability to choose him or to turn away from him.
God didn’t “create” hell. One widely understood definition of Hell is “a place of eternal punishment for sin”. But there is another definition that I THINK comes from the Baltimore Catechism, “Hell is separation from God.” In sinning, one distances oneself from God in the same way that doing things that are contrary to how your parents want you to act distances you from them. It logically follows, then, that if you are conscious of what God says is right or wrong and you choose it anyway, you are choosing separation from God.
I’ll be honest, I don’t know my Bible as well as other people, so I’m seriously questioning you out of curiosity. Could you post any sort of example where the Bible uses the term “atheist”, or any equivalent word or phrase? I can’t recall ever seeing something like that. “Unbelievers,” as I remember seeing it used, was generally used to describe worshipers of other, false gods such as Baal.
I agree, the topic has been educational and insightful 
(Bolding is my doing)
Apologies for not writing this as clearly as I could have, it would take a very long time to do so and I will not spare the time.
I am amused that you went to a priest to find out what you believe. Please, say you were argued into that position with rational arguments and proof from your holy book; not just this priest’s say-so.
I disagree that there is such a thing as natural law (that is not to say I am some greedy, murdering beast), but I don’t care to argue that point.
This is the way that I would expect a just god to behave, so long as the natural law he applied to everyone is not absurd (most Christian morality leaves a bad taste in my mouth). Your priest’s explanation is well and good, except that it sounds not much like Christianity, forgeting all of the talk of sin. By most accounts, it is a sin to be imperfect (god is perfect, thus sin separates us - this is consistent; and ridiculous).
What is it to be human? Should I repent for having an extra cookie? For desiring a woman lustfully (if this indeed be imperfect)? This list continues endlessly. Your Christianity makes everything about your body and mind a sin, and you are left forever repenting. This is the Catholic guilt. This is neurotic.
Do you feel liberated by this? Is it only the promise of the life after that keeps you trudging through this sea of black guilt? I live for the life I know I have, not for one men have promised me in their holy books.
We must have our less desirable aspects mixed with our more desirable aspects. Denying human nature and cursing it is not a very great way to live. Accept your nature, and live with that. Do not apologize for it - you did not create yourself!
It is an easy target, but that is for good reason: look at the instances of child molestation in Catholic church and the church’s careless and reluctant response to them. These pure men, constantly striving to be perfect and cursing their nature are perhaps caught unawares: they cannot deny nature, and it finds an outlet!
I am not saying that natural tendencies are necessarily good, I am saying it is dangerous to live a life cursing your nature. Better to accept it and learn, and have a heart free of guilt. I can very vaguely agree with the spirit of your priest’s premise, but not with the baggage of the theology behind it. It is black, and spits at life.
God, by your own theology, has ultimate power and has created everything. This includes human nature, the moral law by which we are judged, the mechanism by which that law is applied, and this state of hell (if he did not create it explicitly, it is at least the consequence of his other creations). I’m not letting Yahweh/Jesus off the hook here. You can’t make me imperfect and then punish me for it, wiping your hands clean of the responsibility of it because I had free will. It is impossible for me to be perfect, and I will not apologize and bear the guilt of that.
I’ve incorporated this idea of separation from god in my above replies. I disagree that god did not create such a place, if he is the creator: yes he did. He creates the moral law, human nature, and so on; as addressed above.
You haven’t seen atheist in your bible, because it’s not an English word. You will only find it in the original Greek. You can find it in the Epistle to the Ephesians, (2:12).
Let’s look at the same passage in the King James version:
Christians have generally referred to anyone who was not a Christian as an unbeliever, an atheist, and infidel. Yes, even atheist. Not because they are without a god, but because they were quite self centred - they were without THE god. Theos- does not specifically refer to the Christian god, though.
How about this, God is God, we know because we have faith, strengthed by our religions, backed up by the very idea that the world around you exists. A simple Big Bang couldn’t have made this, something would cause the Big Bang, if so.
Please don’t take this wrong, everyone’s entitled to their own beliefs, I think this thread was kind of a mistake, though the debating is sort of helping us communicate. I’m NOT poking or jesting about other religions/beliefs. We’re still humans, and we were all made from something, whatever it was 
Someone posted:
“I disagree. The magical lesbian witch abortionist unicorn with rainbows coming out of its backside created trees. Why not? I mean if you’ll go for god, why not another option? Besides, I believe a magical lesbian witch abortionist unicorn with rainbows would be a much more amusing truth.”
Dear Lord Father are these the people I am to devote my life for saving? Are you serious? If I’m frustrated I can ONLY imagine your anguish. I pray for your understanding, and guidance with words. For I know they will see you one day. I pray that day comes when they have many left. I know what I must do, help me do it. In the name of everything you are… Amen
You are attempting to restart the discussion. Please read through the discussion so far, as to determine where it lies, because many of your arguments have already been discussed.
Argumentum ad hominem. Instead of addressing our arguments, you turn to ridicule us by making our oppositions seem falsely delusional. I’m sorry to have to point this out, but your arguments have been the weakest in this discussion so far (weakest meaning having the lowest evidence per statement ratio).
I will try to respond to more people, but I have indian food to process. 
Okay. Messenge from God. If you so choose to accept it a so.
"You have your heads in the sand. Arguing over the trivial. Names/people/places/specifics. When the truth is I come to you all in the form of love. Life. Consciousness. If the Christian God offends you, call me Allah. If thee is still troubled call me Yah-Weh. I am the Buddha. Alpha & Omega. I am not concerned with mans arbitrary attempts at named interpretations. I placed man-kind upon the Earth to strive for perfection. For divinity. Yet the ignorance you shadow will not even allow you start the journey. Deep in your heart of hearts I am with you and will be accepted for I do not forsake you in time of doubt, in time of struggle, or in time of prosperity.
I am love, I am the light, I am the Almighty. When one has truly begun a path in search of me I will always be revealed…
“Jesus is not ducking in your rear-view.”
My bad 
too lazy to read 7 pages 
. Indian food, ooh I want some
@Bombax – Indian food, for the win! I’m interested to hear what you have to say about my latest post.
@Amorphis – I’ve been working to address each of your concerns about my post, but I’ve run out of time for tonight (well, where I am, anyway 
). Hopefully I’ll have something up in the next 24 hours or less, but man… good, tough questions!
@RoD – its a LOT of information to digest, for sure!
Weakest evidence per statement ratio. Ha. Pretty fancy for wrong. My evidence is the world you inhabit. Everything you are, feel, and think. If the evidence is weak your eyes are closed. I’m so sorry. You don’t even have an argument. There is no argument. We have a creator who made us out of love and joy to strive for all that is good in the world. And you, along with all your scientific friends, think we have no purpose. I’m so sorry, again. You live in a world with no absolute purpose or definition for Why we are here. You, and all your lil friends again, either believe in self, (Buying bigger T.Vs, nice houses, jewlery, fancy cars and luxury) or you believe in helping others. One or the other.
Your either here to help you, or to help other people. Make your pick. If you pick the latter, other people, then you must ask yourself “Why.” Because this goes against the human nature trait of greed.
And my last thing. Someone please anyone, read through the last couple pages and note that every athiest or whatever never actually made a point. They just called us believers wrong. They literally copied what we wrote, quoted it… and put wrong. Never making a case for themselves.
Your entire case consists of “Billions of numbers FROM BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO and the fact you can’t see him.” Done Over. No one post again. The argument was settled, and they lost. I’m sure I’ll get a moderator or whatever. They’re probably just a pissed off athiest too. if I become removed it will only be due to hipocracy. “Wond3rland don’t voice your opinion. And if you do, don’t believe it. Because someone might get offended if you think they’re WRONG”
Smart people believe in God. Dumb people believe in fabricated calculations from 1000000 BILLION years ago.
I’m sorry. Not sorry as in wrong, sorry as in you don’t see it yet. The absolute worst thing is I know why. I do. I understand, like actually understand. There’s a war going on for your mind. WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!