Thread: Purpose - An argument for belief in God

EDIT: It appears you've deleted your post, but I'm just going to let this sit here so everyone can see how poor your arguments were.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I don't "believe" in God either, I am just forced to come to the conclusion that God exists through logic and science. And I'm convinced, that everyone who will follow this path, will come to the same conclusion. I'm pretty convinced that everyone one day will also will have to come to the same conclusion, that God exists, the only thing that is preventing people from accepting God is the realization that God and the Devil are the same. Think about how crisis is the catalyst for evolution.

Ok, you are claiming that logic and science will support your argument...lets see how that turns out.

God has no mercy on us, just because, we have such amazing potential. And besides, if we all die, he will just recreate us. Big deal.

Are you implying that God reincarnates individuals? Do you have any empirical evidence to support that assumption?

Anyway, let me ask you guys, if God doesn't exist, why get so emotional over him? The mere reaction to the idea of God, is proof of God.

We don't get "emotional" about God; we get frustrated at willfully ignorant theists who ignore all evidence that is contrary to their beliefs, who characterize atheists as immoral, illogical, and ignorant, and who actively push their worldview on others by influencing government.

Through logical contradiction, you can proof God.

1. We can recreate the entire universe inside our mind and play God in our dreams, yet claim God doesn't exist.
2. We can in the future recreate a virtual reality, matrix style, creating the universe ourself, yet claim a creator, God doesn't exist.

I have no idea what you are trying to grab at here.

3. DNA is a language written like a book, hence implying a writer: God.
4. If DNA would spontanously, randomly come into existence, why can we not recreate randomness in computer algorithms? All random algorithms are pseudorandom. Random is nothing but a pseudo explanation hiding the true cause.
5. The cell, the building block of life has no precursor. Claiming the cell came spontanously into existence is exactly the same as claiming computers came spontanously into existence. The difference is, cells are way more complex and each organism grows from one single cell. Including humans. So this claim would basically be the same as saying humans spontanously came into existence.

Apparently I can't post videos because my account is only 5 days old. Potholer54 has some wonderful videos on his youtube channel on this subject. I think you should check him out.

I totally agree with science and evolution, except for the part where they claim it is all random. To be me it is obviously designed. Just like it is obvious that computers are designed. I am reasoning purely from a scientific perspective. I don't believe in religion. God is the ultimate scientist.

See above.

These arguments cannot be countered, and always lead to flamewars, which again, is proof of God. It is pretty sad tho that people resort to insulting and abandon all logic.

No, they can.

Can you respond to my post, without getting angry? There is your proof of God. The mere fact that my logic causes such huge emotional uproar is proof of God. Calling me stupid is not a valid logical argument and is again only running away from logic.

I just responded without getting angry. So, um, does that disprove God?

As long as you deny the existence of God, your logic will be flawed.

Priceless.

Don't argue with Chayba, you'll live longer.

See now Chayba, I think your deleted post got to the heart of the misunderstanding. Nobody in science claims that evolution is random; it is a clear pattern that gets less and less random the more it progresses. The lack of a conscious creator laying everything out perfectly as it is now from the beginning does not imply complete randomness. The world is not a rigid black and white dichotomy consisting only of diametric opposites, as much as some might like to portray it that way.

Seriously, we've had like three threads over this, it just doesn't work. Go read them and see...

Hah, the number of times he's had that one point explained to him is beyond belief. And every time he reverts to the same argument. Plusgood doublethinker.

Doubleplusgood at least.

I've been thinking of you lately, Xei; I recently took 1984 down from the shelf for another read through.

Based on this information Chayba, if I see you making the "completely random" argument again I will infract you for trolling, and this is not a joke.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Don't argue with Chayba, you'll live longer.

I'll keep that in mind when I reply to the next logically incoherent post he makes.

Originally Posted by Xei

A second ago you were making a massive issue about the distinction between 'lack of belief' and 'disbelief' and now you've swapped one term for the other. Are you trying to trap me or something? Man, this is sad. :/

I have no idea what the point of this is, where it's going (circles apparently) or how it's relevant to anything... I've already said, I don't have a belief in any God because there is a lack of evidence.

isn't this apppeal to ignorance? since there is a lack of evidence it must be false? ....what if you and everyone on this forum is all in my head? there is a "lack of evidence" that everything here is just a figmant of my mind....so does that mean it is true that you really don't exist?

Originally Posted by erible

isn't this apppeal to ignorance? since there is a lack of evidence it must be false? ....what if you and everyone on this forum is all in my head? there is a "lack of evidence" that everything here is just a figmant of my mind....so does that mean it is true that you really don't exist?

Not believing is different from claiming something is false or doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Not believing is different from claiming something is false or doesn't exist.

isn't it common sense? if you didn't believe something in the first place then why would say what you didn't believe in doesn't exist. If you believe something, generally you also believe something disproving it is false, and vice versa.

Originally Posted by erible

isn't it common sense? if you didn't believe something in the first place then why would say what you didn't believe in doesn't exist. If you believe something, generally you also believe something disproving it is false, and vice versa.

First off, I feel the need to toss out an Einstein paraphrase here: "Common sense is nothing more than the prejudices which one has acquired by adulthood."

Second, wtf? Only your first sentence made any sense whatsoever. I can't even parse the other two.

I'm going to hazard a guess and ask if you're claiming that by denying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, you're admitting that you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Originally Posted by erible

isn't it common sense? if you didn't believe something in the first place then why would say what you didn't believe in doesn't exist. If you believe something, generally you also believe something disproving it is false, and vice versa.

Because one can live their life as if something doesn't exist while still retaining the wall of not being able to prove the validity of a certain claim. It all has to do with being thorough, scientific, and putting one's ego aside.