Thread: Unicorns, Sasquatches and God

Moreso the pink invisible unicorn... May you her blessed hooves tread upon your spirit and grace it with her bulky pink presence.

I believe in elvolution, thats why I believe in sasquatch. Dont worry, the truth will soon come out, and I hope to be the person to find it.

[serious_tone]but i do believe in unicorns, sasquatches, and mermaids... [/serious_tone]

[size=18]“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” -Psalm 19:1-4

Originally posted by bradybaker
For all you theists out there...

First tell me where there is NOT evidence for God. This, if you haven't noticed already from other discussions and posts, is an issue of FAITH (or perhaps in your case, the lack thereof). Therefore the point is moot in my eyes. However...

In addition to the Biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments as well. First, there is the ontological argument. This argument basically says that since over 98% of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, on all continents believe in the existence of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief. A second is the teleological argument. The teleological argument is that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer. For example, if earth were even a few hundred miles closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 0’s). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” something is God. A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and instead believe a lie. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
People claim to not believe in God because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is because once people admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from God (Romans 3:23; 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable for our actions to Him. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. I believe that is why evolution is so strongly clung to by many in our society - to give people an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
Allow me one last argument for God’s existence. How do I know God exists? I know God exists because I speak to Him every day. I do not audibly hear Him speaking back to me, but I sense His presence, I feel His leading, I know His love, I desire His grace. Things have occurred in my life that have no other possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved me and changed my life that I cannot help but to acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments in and of themselves can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is so plainly clear. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark, it is a step into a well-lit room where 90% of people are already standing.

Originally posted by bradybaker
For all you theists out there...if you believe in God why not unicorns, sasquatches or mermaids?

For all you materialists out there...if you believe in a material external universe why not God, unicorns, sasquatches, or mermaids?

Thank you for numbering your arguements Evangel.

1. The majority of the people for a long time thought that the world was flat. The opinions of the majority are in no way indicative of any objective truth.

2. The universe's design is complex, but it is possible, although not probable that it was all random. There are other possibilities that account for this complexity as well, and there are surely ones that haven't been thought of.

3. If you're a Christian, then causeality isn't really on your side. God created the Earth, knowing the effects of the specific design of his creation, setting forth a chain of events that leaves no room for free will, and hence no justification for reward or punishment and no guilt on humanity.

4. Morals may have arose out of necessity or instinct.

Those arguements all rest somewhat on materialism, and that itself is questionable.

This wasn’t about evidence for god, it was pointing out the exact same amount of evidence for bigfoot. But since you started it!

Ps, I love you brady now I have something to do instead of study

First, there is the ontological argument. This argument basically says that since over 98% of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, on all continents believe in the existence of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief. [/b]

Not really an ontological argument. But anyways...

Oh yay, if it’s popular it must be true. Still doesn't prove any particular god, and works a ways to disproving the xian god. What with other beliefs being around longer, and having more followers and all.

A second is the teleological argument. The teleological argument is that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer. For example, if earth were even a few hundred miles closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 0’s). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules. [/b]

Again, the teleological argument doesn't really back up your particular brand of theism. For instance, how does this prove the existence of a monotheistic god over pantheistic gods. Deism works rather well too. Hell, any belief in a deity, no matter how crazy or made up it may be, can be justified with this.

It’s not a particularly good justification either, the teleological argument is an argument from analogy. That is, we see the clear design of man-made artefacts - and we assume that this design is mirrored in the world/universe. Obviously man-made objects are created by intelligence, so (by analogy) why not everything else?

Someone smarter than me wrote about it so - Hume (from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) points out that an analogy relies solely on the strong (or falls on the weak) resemblance between cases:

Whenever you depart, in the least from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionately the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty. After having experienced the circulation of blood in creatures, we make no doubt that it takes place in Titus and Maevius. But from its circulation in frogs and fishes it is only a presumption, though a strong one, from analogy, that it takes place in men and other animals. The analogical reasoning is much weaker when we infer the circulation of sap in vegetables from our experience that blood circulates in animals, and those who hastily followed that imperfect analogy, are found, by more accurate experiments, to have been mistaken ... If we see a house, ... , we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder, because this is precisely that the species of effect, which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can pretend is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider
[/b]

I wish I could write like that . But all that aside, if I were to follow the teleological argument into belief - why would I follow it into a Christian belief? The existence of some really nasty creatures, disease, natural disasters, etc leads me away from the thought of a creator liking us.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” something is God. [/b]

Again, how does this help the specific case of christianity? Works for all brands of theism.

All the theorising on infinity makes my head hurt, and since I'm already studying maths atm I don't really want to go into it that much. Luckily Other people (that guys a theist philosopher) have already shown how the Cosmological argument is lacking.

One thing from me though (seems kind of glaring, have to point it out)

1. All things must have a cause
2. Something must have been \"un-caused\"

BWAH!?!

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
[/b]

Again, useful for all forms of theism - not that useful for a specific one. If you're looking at every culture like you said, you don't have a specific god carrying over for all of them. What you do have, is that they were all societies of people.

We have morals because of social conditioning. Murder is rejected because we need to live to survive as a society. Stealing is bad because as a society we value possessions. Lying, what makes you think everyone rejects that? If you look at the Odyssey for example, one of Odysseus' main characteristics is his lies. Portraying a hero as a liar is not something you would do if it was universally rejected.

\"Immorality\" is not universally rejected, because \"Immorality\" is completely subjective to the society. The concept of immorality is rejected universally, but that just supports the \"social conditioning\" reason for morality over the \"god said so\". Societies all come up with different rules on how to live together, and to do that they deem certain things \"immoral\".

I believe that is why evolution is so strongly clung to by many in our society - to give people an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence. [/b]

Ok I hear this a lot so I'm clearing it up once and for all:

Evolution has nothing to do with the existance/nonexistance of a creator, that’s ABIOGENESIS

And for the record, ultimately everyone knows jack. You have no proof for you position, that’s why it’s called faith. Ultimately you know nothing for certain. And all it takes to exist is that someone tries to disprove it?

I don’t have a million dollars, I don't have a million dollars, I don't have a million dollars... everybody now!

Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark, it is a step into a well-lit room where 90% of people are already standing.[/b]

Yeah. Standing around arguing/killing each other over which god is realest. I'll pass. Plus that 90% is slightly made up don't you think?

Oooooh I almost forgot the most important part! You didn't answer the question. What about poor ol' bigfoot?

-spoon

Thanks for mentioning all of those arguments in favour of the existence of God evangel, I took high school philosophy too.

Originally posted by evangel
This argument basically says that since over 98% of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, on all continents believe in the existence of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a time when everyone (give or take a few visionaries), believed that the world was flat. What do you think was the "something" that caused this belief? I would say that it was a lack of knowledge, obviously not the fact that the world actually was flat. But who knows, maybe the world was flat back in those days and then God decided to crunch it up into a ball?

Besides, that isn't what the Ontological Argument really is, I suggest you retake that philosophy course. Here's an accurate description of it for your information and anyone else who's interested:
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

Unfortunately for the Ontological argument, it can be used to prove the existence of all sorts of non-existent things. (ie. a unicorn greater than all other unicorns or a sasquatch greater than all other sasquatches).

Also, you may be interested in this article. http://www.godpart.com/pages/premise.html
The article is based on a scientifically acclaimed book titled, "The God Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper.

Moving on, you present the Teleological argument, aka. the Intelligent design or argument from design theory. Here's the more logical, step-by-step presentation of the argument:
1. It is extremely implausible that living things could have come to exist by mere chance.
2. Living things exist.
3. Therefore, probably, living things did not come to exist by mere chance.
4. If living things did not come to exist by mere chance, then living things were designed.
5. Therefore, living things were designed.

It is very difficult to understand how the first premise is justified. What is the basis for the claim that a chance-origination of living things is implausible? More significantly, why should it be any more plausible that a supernatural being exists who is responsible for the creation/design of living things? Furthermore, the 3rd premise is extremely tenuous at best. It provides no assurance that living things in fact did not arise from chance. It is simply an assumption and a poor one at that. Read on to find out why.

Recent studies indicate the first single celled organisms could have arisen much more easily than previously thought. A very unique type of clay has been discovered deep underwater near thermal vents in the ocean. When free nucleic acid molecules (quite common in nature) are mixed with the clay, the spontaneous formation of a primitive type of ribonucleic acid (RNA, a key part of most living cells) occurs. Even more surprisingly, when fatty acids are added to this mixture, they spontaneously form hollow spheres with the primitive RNA locked inside. These are the first steps toward creating a living cell. This clay proves that the formation of extremely complex molecules (like RNA) is not only possible but, in fact, relatively probable.

Next is the cosmological argument, "every effect has a cause". God is the "uncaused cause". That's quite an assumption don't you think? Where do you get off assuming that the universe had a beginning? Furthermore, where did God come from? Why is he exempt from the cause and effect rule? Seems like you have a lot of questions to answer for that one.

The moral argument is my personal favourite. First of all let me say that I don't need any big, scary father figure to tell me what's right and what's wrong. Secondly, morality is social construct, not a religious one. Take incest for example, in the 1600s it was not only practiced but encouraged in royal families, and they were supposedly chosen by God to be leaders! Today however incest is considered unacceptable, immoral and rather disgusting by an overwhelming majority of the population. Why was it acceptable back then but is not acceptable now? Because culture has changed.

As for the bible...right now there is another entire thread devoted to the validity of that tall tale. I'll only say that it should never be mistaken as evidence for anything. Read the first section or two of this site to get an idea of what I mean:
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart11....html#issref111
There's plenty more where that came from.

Personal experience is great and all, but also doesn't really mean anything except to yourself. I like to think of religion and spirituality as a self-reinforcing delusion. But if it's not too personal, I'd like to hear about the miracles in your life and exactly how God saved and changed you. If it is personal though, don't worry about it.

More importantly than any of this, you didn't even answer my question! Do you believe in unicorns and sasquatches too? I've seen video! That's got to be more reliable than a 2000 year old story? No?

EDIT: Sorry that I repeated a lot of stuff from previous posts. I took a break during writing it and when I finally got it posted, others had already replied.

Actually that wasn't my own argument... That was a copy 'n' paster , but it does sum up my perspective pretty well. .

Besides, that isn't what the Ontological Argument really is, I suggest you retake that philosophy course. [/b]

Why, so I can be enlightened like yourself? Okay... Those \"arguments were extreme simplifications/summaries as you noticed. As far as the argument for popularity goes (I knew that would get lots of knee-jerky... - as it usually does), the reason I think it's nonetheless good to mention is because IT IS ignorant to claim that there is no God (then make an argument that there is \"no proof\" - especially since the kind of \"proof\" atheists require is non-existent on either side) - AND TO SAY SUCH would be to AT LEAST imply that this majority of humankind who do believe in God, or some perception of Him is delusional or self-deceived. To me, that notion is ridiculousesesessness.

The reason I chopped and pasted is because I've laready gone around and around in circles with several people -both on this forum and in waking life regarding this topic and have no desire to do so again. Th ewhole dog chasing its tail (or returning to its regurgitation ifr you prefer) schpiel gets old after a while. NO AMOUNT OF REASON, LOGIC, OR courses taken in PHILOSOPHY WOULD BE ENOUGH to convince these people of God's existence because they have already (in their own minds) buried him under a mountain of doubt

I don't need any big, scary father figure to tell me what's right and what's wrong.[/b]

Sure you don't. You need SOMEONE, though. Whether it is God, or some other source of suthority, your beliefs originate from somewhere else, dude(s). I know for a fact that you're not brilliant eneough to come up with your current beliefes from a vacuum. Whether it's \"society\" or your PARENTS, or some other social role model/authority, what you believe now is not new or unique to yourself (sorry to burst any ego-bubbles). You might argue that your perspective is \"your own\" because you reasoned and \"came to your own conclusions\" but to say that those who believe otherwise have not done the same is simply ridiculous (It must be noticed that the argument that someone has the same beliefs as a majority or large group does not negate their ability to reason and come to such beliefs ON THEIR OWN.

There's plenty more where that came from. [/b]

I can believe that much... There seems to be no end to the pile o' chips on people's shoulders when it comes to this topic. A part of me supposes that I should not have even validated this topic with a response since ridicule is part of the motive in the first place.. . OH well.

Other things everybody believed was the plague was called by miasma ("bad" air), that fleas formed from dirt, and whatnot. [/trivia]

Originally posted by evangel
the reason I think it's nonetheless good to mention is because IT IS ignorant to claim that there is no God (then make an argument that there is \"no proof\" - especially since the kind of \"proof\" atheists require is non-existent on either side) - AND TO SAY SUCH would be to AT LEAST imply that this majority of humankind who do believe in God, or some perception of Him is delusional or self-deceived. To me, that notion is ridiculousesesessness.

You still didn't address the \"world is flat\" scenario. Or is it actually true that God crunched it up into a ball?

Originally posted by evangel
AND TO SAY SUCH would be to AT LEAST imply that this majority of humankind who do believe in God, or some perception of Him is delusional or self-deceived. To me, that notion is ridiculousesesessness.

Read \"The God Part of the Brain\" article again. I covered that.

Originally posted by evangel
Sure you don't. You need SOMEONE, though. Whether it is God, or some other source of suthority, your beliefs originate from somewhere else, dude(s)

Thanks for disproving your own statement.

the kind of \"proof\" atheists require is non-existent on either side[/b]

I'm not an atheist because I think I have or can disprove the existence of God, I'm an atheist because I see no reason that I should believe in God. If there is no evidence for a belief, why hold that belief? It's completely illogical.

But more importantly, you still haven't answered the question. What about unicorns and sasquatches?!?!?!

the reason I think it's nonetheless good to mention is because IT IS ignorant to claim that there is no God ... AND TO SAY SUCH would be to AT LEAST imply that this majority of humankind who do believe in God, or some perception of Him is delusional or self-deceived...[/b]

The majority of humankind does not believe in a particular god. Unless christianity has changed overnight, all other religions are "delusional or self-decieved". How is us rejecting one more deity different than you?

And the argument from popularity isn't an argurment. You can't just put "belief in a god" under one umbrella and expect it to be taken as proof that one of them is right. Which one? Why? Is it merely the one with the most believers? The oldest?

And by the way, just because someone has an opposing viewpoint to you doesn't mean they have a "chip on the shoulder".

-spoon

discussion by smilie

-spoon