• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Does God exist? (8 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,568

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The relation of the speed of light to anything relies upon the substitution of the speed of light itself into a formula.

One can analyse randomly generated functions in an intelligent manner in a consistent and correct way, what's your point?
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
bshoc said:
Exactly, science can give you an explanation for the current process of human growth, the argument of human life, or life in general, can always be wound back in time to a point where science no longer has an explanation.
That point continues to be wound back. There are thousands of things that we have explanations for now that 1000 years ago would've been explained by the phrase "God did it".
 

bshoc

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,498
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
withoutaface said:
The relation of the speed of light to anything relies upon the substitution of the speed of light itself into a formula.

One can analyse randomly generated functions in an intelligent manner in a consistent and correct way, what's your point?
Because the relation of the speed of light towards other forms of energy is not "random." Otherwise you could assign random variables to all other forms of energy ie. speed of sound, and they would be just as correct. Please inform me as to how far human science would have gotten by assigning random variables of chance, a space program running on the pretext that the speed of sound is three times the speed of light?

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that whilst anything is possible to some degree of random chance, it is far more likely that intelligence can be successful in its creation.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The complexness and specialness? Look, I know I'm repeating myself, but that's really it. I look at life, I look at humans, I look at the universe, and it makes no sense to me that there is no true purpose or reason to it all; that it all exists because of a random coincidence.
Yes we know it 'makes no sense to you' but it's a non-sequitur to say that life is complex therefore god exists, I'm looking for the stuff in between (non-sequitur means "it doesn't follow"). There's also the problem of who designed the designer....

Everything in the universe is governed by laws, laws of physics etc. The existance of these laws suggests the existance of a law maker.
No it doesn't, explain how you come to that conclusion. The existance of the laws can be explained as a result of what is i.e. the anthropic principle.

Why is the speed of light the speed of light? and why can this be so easily related back to other types of energy within the context of a single system or interpretation?
Anthropic.

Perfect implementation by random chance? If it requires intelligence to interpret, and this interpretation is consistant and correct, it is far more likely that intelligence, rather than random chance, was used to create it.
No it isn't. Once again a Non sequitur, unless you're willing to follow it up. Also, if it's more likely that intelligence created the universe then what created that intelligence? You run into the same problem.

the argument of human life, or life in general, can always be wound back in time to a point where science no longer has an explanation.
Yes it can, how is this an argument in favor of gods existance?

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that whilst anything is possible to some degree of random chance, it is far more likely that intelligence can be successful in its creation.
It's true that if there was this thing that could have intelligently designed the universe, that we knew about, it would be wrong to posit chance as more likely to have created the universe than it. The problem is, however, we don't have any evidence that there is such a being any more than we have evidence for magical elves - Therefore any degree of chance trumps it.
 
Last edited:

bshoc

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,498
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
withoutaface said:
That point continues to be wound back. There are thousands of things that we have explanations for now that 1000 years ago would've been explained by the phrase "God did it".
Yes but science is no closer to the answer of origin as anyone else at any other point in human history, nor is this a question that science can indeed answer in any degree of certainty.
 

Jachie

it ain't easy being white
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,662
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
Not-That-Bright said:
Yes we know it 'makes no sense to you' but it's a non-sequitur to say that life is complex therefore god exists, I'm looking for the stuff in between (non-sequitur means "it doesn't follow"). There's also the problem of who designed the designer....
I know what it means, thank you, and I personally don't care if you think it's "non-sequitur", it's what I believe. Obviously any conclusion that is reached by someone and relates to God's existance is non-sequitur to you, so it's really no surprise to me that you find my own beliefs nonsensical. As an Athiest, there's absolutely nothing I can say that will make my beliefs logical to you, so I don't know what answer you're expecting.

Like I said, I have no proof or evidence to back up my own thoughts and beliefs. I don't claim to. That is, purely and simply, what faith is. People can merely give you their own opinion on the matter, and you can argue and try to convince them otherwise, but in the end you're not going to get the proof you're asking for.
 

Jachie

it ain't easy being white
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,662
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
lengy said:
You mean as a theist Jacqueline.
Oh, whoops. I was actually calling N-T-B and Athiest, not myself, but I really jumbled up that sentence. Ahaha. Apologies.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I know what it means, thank you, and I personally don't care if you think it's "non-sequitur", it's what I believe.
I wasn't trying to belittle you... it also doesn't matter what you 'personally think', it is a non-sequitur that needs to be filled in.

Obviously any conclusion that is reached by someone and relates to God's existance is non-sequitur to you, so it's really no surprise to me that you find my own beliefs nonsensical.
Then can you show how what you said isn't a non-sequitur to you, at least? While you're right that I haven't yet agreed with the conclusion that God exists, few open-minded theists will actually argue in such a manner, most just like to leave the possibility open.

As an Athiest, there's absolutely nothing I can say that will make my beliefs logical to you, so I don't know what answer you're expecting.
It's pretty annoying that you'll say such things, acting although I'm just another close-minded atheist, when all that I'm asking for is for you to expand upon what you've said. You just keep repeating the same line back at me and when I point out the flaw you tell me I'm just a close-minded atheist and I'll never understand.

The purpose of this thread is to argue about why god exists, you've given your own personal piece, I've explained to you that just because there's complexity doesn't mean god exists. You've said "Because X is true, Y exists", the missing piece of the puzzle is to explain to me why X being true would mean that Y exists. It's like me saying because there's pain in the world God musn't exist, surely you'd ask me to explain why it is that pain exists that god doesn't?

Like I said, I have no proof or evidence to back up my own thoughts and beliefs.
So what separates you from people we lock up that swear they're napoleon bonaparte?

People can merely give you their own opinion on the matter, and you can argue and try to convince them otherwise, but in the end you're not going to get the proof you're asking for.
A part of the questioning for me is trying to work out why people really believe, the true story behind their words that can sometimes be unravelled.
 
Last edited:

_dhj_

-_-
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
1,562
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with building your worldview on religion because frankly, truth is overrated.
 

Jachie

it ain't easy being white
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,662
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
Okay, I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. I never said you're close-minded, because I don't think it. I'm not acting high-and-mighty, because I don't think I am. Now, it is you who is taking the defensive here. It is you who is putting words in my mouth. You can't expect to have a civilised debate when you continue with such behavior.


I wasn't trying to belittle you... it also doesn't matter what you 'personally think', it is a non-sequitur that needs to be filled in.
But here's the thing - I can't fill it in in ways that will satisfy you. I have stated my beliefs, and I have also stated why. You are trying to find proof and facts in faith, which by definition won't have such things.


Then can you show how what you said isn't a non-sequitur to you, at least? While you're right that I haven't yet agreed with the conclusion that God exists, few open-minded theists will actually argue in such a manner, most just like to leave the possibility open.
I have explained it. I have said countless times that I believe life is so complex and beautiful, it has been created with intention and purpose. You disagree, hence you thinking it's a non-sequitur.


So my beliefs aren't logical to you?
Find me a sentence in one of my posts that suggest such a thing.


you tell me I'm just a close-minded atheist and I'll never understand.
Again, since when have I said such things? Silly me, here I was thinking we were having a civilised debate here! This is what I'm talking about when I say you're on the defensive. Please stop putting words in my mouth and reading into things that aren't even there to begin with. My point in saying "I don't know what answer you're expecting" is that you are asking people to prove God's existance, which they obviously can't do, and when they can't do it you continually and aggressively fish for more.


I've explained to you that just because there's complexity doesn't mean god exists.
What explanation have you offered that can disprove God's existance?


You've said "Because X is true, Y exists
No, I have never said that. You rephrase my argument like I'm 100% sure of it and am stating it as fact, and I'm not. I've said I believe Y exists because X is true.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Okay, I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. I never said you're close-minded, because I don't think it. I'm not acting high-and-mighty, because I don't think I am.
Obviously any conclusion that is reached by someone and relates to God's existance is non-sequitur to you, so it's really no surprise to me that you find my own beliefs nonsensical. As an Athiest, there's absolutely nothing I can say that will make my beliefs logical to you, so I don't know what answer you're expecting.
This is to make out although because I'm an atheist I won't/can't ever understand your side of the argument... essentially close-minded.

Find me a sentence in one of my posts that suggest such a thing.
My only point in asking that question was so you can understand that it is possible to find a belief logical yet still disagree with it.

But here's the thing - I can't fill it in in ways that will satisfy you. I have stated my beliefs, and I have also stated why. You are trying to find proof and facts in faith, which by definition won't have such things.
Then at least explain to me how YOU fill in the hole? Of course chances are I'm going to disagree, but at least you've actually made a whole argument.

No, I have never said that. You rephrase my argument like I'm 100% sure of it and am stating it as fact, and I'm not. I've said I believe Y exists because X is true.
True I did manage to make it come off like you're 100% sure, but my point still rests that saying you believe Y exists because X is true is no better than me saying I believe god doesn't exist because pain exists. Surely you'd want me to explain why it is that I believe god doesn't exist merely because pain exists, where the connection is...

Again, since when have I said such things? Silly me, here I was thinking we were having a civilised debate here! This is what I'm talking about when I say you're on the defensive. Please stop putting words in my mouth and reading into things that aren't even there to begin with. My point in saying "I don't know what answer you're expecting" is that you are asking people to prove God's existance, which they obviously can't do, and when they can't do it you continually and aggressively fish for more.
All that I'm asking is for someone who wants to say " I believe god exists for X reason" to explain why X reason is a good reason to believe God exists. I explained earlier in this post how I think you were painting me as closed-minded, I'll re-interate that it's interesting you'd say I could never find your beliefs logical, yet you got angry when I asked whether my beliefs are logical to you.
What explanation have you offered that can disprove God's existance?
We know god doesn't exist as much as we know anything. The realm of possibility where god may exist is the same realm of possibility where we might really be plugged into the matrix, magical leper gnomes may exist and the sandman puts us to sleep at night.
 
Last edited:

Jachie

it ain't easy being white
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,662
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
This is to make out although because I'm an atheist I won't/can't ever understand your side of the argument... essentially close-minded.
Not in this case. In this case, I have presented to you what is in my mind a full argument, and you still obviously find holes in it. I can't give you any more than I already have. That does not make me close-minded. Insufficient at explaining myself? Perhaps. But not close-minded.

Then at least explain to me how YOU fill in the hole? Of course chances are I'm going to disagree, but at least you've actually made a whole argument.
I have explained how I fill in the hole. :) In my eyes, I have made a whole argument. I'm sorry I can't offer you more words, or more of an explanation, but my take of God is very simple in comparison to others, and I can't expand on it much more than I already have. I can understand why it wouldn't be a satisfying argument to some, don't get me wrong. But that's really all there is to it.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Not in this case. In this case, I have presented to you what is in my mind a full argument, and you still obviously find holes in it. I can't give you any more than I already have. That does not make me close-minded. Insufficient at explaining myself? Perhaps. But not close-minded.
I didn't call you close-minded... nevermind about that...

But your point about not being able to give me more should be interesting when you finally answer what i've asked you twice now:

True I did manage to make it come off like you're 100% sure, but my point still rests that saying you believe Y exists because X is true is no better than me saying I believe god doesn't exist because pain exists. Surely you'd want me to explain why it is that I believe god doesn't exist merely because pain exists, where the connection is...
Is that correct, or would you not bother pressing me on that? If it's correct, then surely you can see why I continue to demand more from you.

But that's really all there is to it.
It seems to me you just wanted to state what you think and not even be questioned on it, let alone challenged. You seem unwilling to even discuss why you think the way you do... what a waste of time it was discussing this with you. If you want to really talk about this topic, then please consider answering some my questions/responding to my assertions.
Such as:
[In response to you saying you have no reason/evidence for your beliefs] So what separates you from people we lock up that swear they're napoleon bonaparte?
True I did manage to make it come off like you're 100% sure, but my point still rests that saying you believe Y exists because X is true is no better than me saying I believe god doesn't exist because pain exists. Surely you'd want me to explain why it is that I believe god doesn't exist merely because pain exists, where the connection is...
All that I'm asking is for someone who wants to say " I believe god exists for X reason" to explain why X reason is a good reason to believe God exists. I explained earlier in this post how I think you were painting me as closed-minded, I'll re-interate that it's interesting you'd say I could never find your beliefs logical, yet you got angry when I asked whether my beliefs are logical to you.
[In response to what proof i have that god doesn't exist]We know god doesn't exist as much as we know anything. The realm of possibility where god may exist is the same realm of possibility where we might really be plugged into the matrix, magical leper gnomes may exist and the sandman puts us to sleep at night.
 
Last edited:

Jachie

it ain't easy being white
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,662
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
It seems to me you just wanted to state what you think and not even be questioned on it, let alone challenged. You seem unwilling to even discuss why you think the way you do... what a waste of time it was discussing this with you.
I have no problem with you asking questions, so I don't appreciate that kind of generalization. However, you are going to have to accept the fact that there are some things I can't answer. Your insistence that I fill in the holes for you, for example. I can only give you all that I've got, and you are going to have to meet me halfway. I can’t make something make sense to you. I can only offer my reasoning, and you can make from that what you will.

I have stated, time and time and time again, my reasoning for believing that God exists. You have shown my reasoning doesn’t satisfy you, but that’s on your shoulders, not mine. I have covered it all; I can’t offer you any more explanation because “more” doesn’t exist. You turn the situation around so it seems like I’m refusing to discuss the matter, and that’s not the case.

Although, I will take this opportunity to bring up this point: Waste of time? Tell me, what makes it a waste of time? Because you have failed to convince me, as of yet, that my beliefs are ludicrous?


So what separates you from people we lock up that swear they're napoleon bonaparte?
I purposely ignored this question, because I find it not only irrelevant, but also somewhat offensive. Am I claiming to be God? Am I stating in black-and-white, “God is here amongst us, PERIOD.”? You are completely and deliberately misconstruing my argument. What I am saying, and the ludicrous example you have picked, are like chalk and cheese: there is absolutely no comparison.


Is that correct, or would you not bother pressing me on that? If it's correct, then surely you can see why I continue to demand more from you.
I would press you, just like you have pressed me. The difference is, I have given you my connection. The fact you refuse to accept it is you, not me. Read above paragraphs: I can only give you all that I’ve got. It’s like that “game” you’d play “with” your parents when you were little: you’d ask them a question, they would answer, and you would reply with, “Why?” And they’d answer, and you’d follow-up that explanation with, “Why?” And so it would go. I don’t believe anything I can tell you will satisfy you, and I believe that because I HAVE said all I can say and that still hasn’t satisfied you.


I'll re-interate that it's interesting you'd say I could never find your beliefs logical, yet you got angry when I asked whether my beliefs are logical to you.
I didn’t get angry. That was your interpretation of a post, not the actual intention. The only reason I can claim you’d never find my beliefs logical, is that I have told you them time and time again and you still question me with, “But why?” Questioning is good, I like discussion. But generally, questioning occurs when you find something illogical. The fact I can give you my reasoning for believing in God time and time again, and you still want more explanation, means you’re not satisfied with said reasoning. And why would you be not satisfied with something you find logical?


We know god doesn't exist as much as we know anything. The realm of possibility where god may exist is the same realm of possibility where we might really be plugged into the matrix, magical leper gnomes may exist and the sandman puts us to sleep at night.
Indeed. That’s where the whole, “God-can-never-be-proved; hence-the-whole-faith-concept” comes into play.
 

mr EaZy

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
1,727
Location
punchbowl bro- its the best place to live !
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Jachie said:
That's it.

But I mean, look at how humans grow from babies to adults, how plants can grow from seeds in the ground. I know the scientific explanation behind it, and I accept them 100%. But in the back of my mind, I have to wonder how such complex, perfect systems came to be. You know? Some people are able to chalk it off to the "mere chance" that was our our universe was supposedly created, but that is what I can't accept. I don't have the answers, but I do believe there's more to it than that.
i think i know what your saying; i might have said something similar here:
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=29789

with the science question, i guess we can accept dual realities; like from the islamic perspective, God says in the Quran that he causes the rain to fall from the sky. but in another verse he explains how that process occurred:

Have you not seen how God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a stack, and then you see the rain come out of it.... (Quran, 24:43)
and if i remember correctly, in another verse he describes how he makes the clouds move (by wind ofcourse)

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-g.htm (the four steps involved)

(main page: http://www.islam-guide.com/ )
 

mr EaZy

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
1,727
Location
punchbowl bro- its the best place to live !
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
So what separates you from people we lock up that swear they're napoleon bonaparte?
Dont worry i'll answer this one

Dr. Gary miller explained this question -

it went something like this: if someone comes to you and says that he is henry VI, and he is king of england,= the pychiatrist will go about probing his state until he is convinced that he isnt henry.

so how do we do that?

we ask questions like: where is your wife? where's your crown? and slowly the person will believe that he isnt henry VI or whatever it was- this was off the top of my head- he gave a better answer than mine-

wait here it is, i picked it up from the islamic awareness week stalls at uni "the Amazing Quran", he called it the mythomania- This is where a person believes what he/she is saying



he was talking about how the Quran takes a psychologist's approach to what people say and do... and gets people to question what they have assumed about how life should be governed
 

mr EaZy

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
1,727
Location
punchbowl bro- its the best place to live !
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Not-That-Bright said:
We know god doesn't exist as much as we know anything. The realm of possibility where god may exist is the same realm of possibility where we might really be plugged into the matrix, magical leper gnomes may exist and the sandman puts us to sleep at night.
not really, gremlins and dwarves have never come out of fantasy world trying to connect with us in some way- to communicate with us.

but with God, its different- like when Jesus would have come to the jews telling them the God had sent him- the jews would be like- "your crazy, if you want us to believe you, then prove it" and according to christian and islamic teachings, we believe that he raised the dead and healed the lepers and did some other incredible stuff that to the audience at the time of his existence- would serve as undeniable proof that God exists at least prima facie- the way to disprove that would be to show that a man at the time could do what jesus did- which they couldnt (obviously as it was impposible)

so to say that the "realm of possibility where god may exist is the same realm of possibility where we might really be plugged into the matrix, magical leper gnomes may exist and the sandman puts us to sleep at night" does not hold as nobody to my knowledge has ever came out and made such propositions.

i think i gave a better answer on the muslim village link above with aliens coming down to earth and saying that they were Gods and had unbelieveable technology to prove it.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Jachie said:
I have no problem with you asking questions, so I don't appreciate that kind of generalization. However, you are going to have to accept the fact that there are some things I can't answer.
You have your reasons for believing things, there's a reason why you think complexity of life might mean god exists, many others I know have been able to voice this, maybe you can't but I'm sure there is a reason somewhere in your brain.

Your insistence that I fill in the holes for you, for example. I can only give you all that I've got, and you are going to have to meet me halfway. I can’t make something make sense to you. I can only offer my reasoning, and you can make from that what you will.
Your reasoning is missing a huge chunk in it though. There is certainly a reason why you believe that complexity would mean a god is more likely, perhaps you just can't convey it?

I have stated, time and time and time again, my reasoning for believing that God exists. You have shown my reasoning doesn’t satisfy you, but that’s on your shoulders, not mine.
And I have shown to you, using the analogy of if I said "I believe god doesn't exist because there's pain in the world" that such answers beg the question.

I have covered it all; I can’t offer you any more explanation because “more” doesn’t exist.
I know that more explanation exists because bshoc himself in this thread has already voiced one version of the reasoning you could use to fill that gap.

You turn the situation around so it seems like I’m refusing to discuss the matter, and that’s not the case.
Seems like it to me.

Although, I will take this opportunity to bring up this point: Waste of time? Tell me, what makes it a waste of time? Because you have failed to convince me, as of yet, that my beliefs are ludicrous?
No, I never try to do that, believe I could, or even want to convince you of anything. I'd be happy to just get you thinking, at the moment you seem to be stuck in a rut on this question where you feel "complexity" is a good enough answer on its own... I've tried to show you that it's not but you seem unwilling to delve deeper. I seriously doubt you CANNOT think beyond what you've stated.

I purposely ignored this question, because I find it not only irrelevant, but also somewhat offensive.
I mean no offense, sometimes I just think the way I look at faith (as often logically ludacris) can come accross as offensive and I don't think it was irrelevant, as I'll explain.

Am I claiming to be God?
No.

Am I stating in black-and-white, “God is here amongst us, PERIOD.”?
No, but someone imagining they're bonaparte doesn't need to be saying in black and white "I AM NAPOLEON BONAPARTE", they might just feel that chances are they're napoleon.

You are completely and deliberately misconstruing my argument. What I am saying, and the ludicrous example you have picked, are like chalk and cheese: there is absolutely no comparison.
You haven't explained WHY there's no comparison to be drawn, just stated it. Here's the problem:

1) You stated you have no reasons/evidence for your belief.
2) Insane people have no reasons/evidence for their belief.

C: Your belief is on par with the insane, in terms of evidence.

I don't think it is, I think you either don't know or are concealing your reasons for belief.

I would press you, just like you have pressed me. The difference is, I have given you my connection.
To say the complexity of the universe is the reason you believe in God is as good as me saying the colour of my wallpaper is the reason I don't believe, without any further justification for WHY it is that the complexity of the universe makes you think God is more possible.

I don’t believe anything I can tell you will satisfy you, and I believe that because I HAVE said all I can say and that still hasn’t satisfied you.
Ok, if you really can't say any more that's fine.

I didn’t get angry. That was your interpretation of a post, not the actual intention. The only reason I can claim you’d never find my beliefs logical, is that I have told you them time and time again and you still question me with, “But why?” Questioning is good, I like discussion. But generally, questioning occurs when you find something illogical.
I don't find what you've said so far to really be illogical, just that it needs more filling to actually make any meaningful sense.

The fact I can give you my reasoning for believing in God time and time again, and you still want more explanation, means you’re not satisfied with said reasoning. And why would you be not satisfied with something you find logical?
I'll give an example.

A mechanic says the car won't start because the spark plug is broken. That is a fairly logical statement, however to find out whether it's really meaningful, it might be necessary to ask why it is that the spark plug being broken would mean the car won't start.

Indeed. That’s where the whole, “God-can-never-be-proved; hence-the-whole-faith-concept” comes into play.
Well that's my argument against God, if you believe in God then logically you should also believe in all sorts of supernatural concepts i.e. magic dwarves etc.

Dr. Gary miller explained this question -

it went something like this: if someone comes to you and says that he is henry VI, and he is king of england,= the pychiatrist will go about probing his state until he is convinced that he isnt henry.
How does that prove that his belief, when he had it, was any less sound then your own? All it shows is that some people with particular beliefs can be shown/made to believe they are wrong - The same can happen with religious belief.

not really, gremlins and dwarves have never come out of fantasy world trying to connect with us in some way- to communicate with us.
I could show connections that they have just as well as you could show connections that god has.

but with God, its different- like when Jesus would have come to the jews telling them the God had sent him- the jews would be like- "your crazy, if you want us to believe you, then prove it" and according to christian and islamic teachings, we believe that he raised the dead and healed the lepers and did some other incredible stuff that to the audience at the time of his existence- would serve as undeniable proof that God exists at least prima facie- the way to disprove that would be to show that a man at the time could do what jesus did- which they couldnt (obviously as it was impposible)
We don't know what happened at that time thus rendering your argument entirely void.

so to say that the "realm of possibility where god may exist is the same realm of possibility where we might really be plugged into the matrix, magical leper gnomes may exist and the sandman puts us to sleep at night" does not hold as nobody to my knowledge has ever came out and made such propositions.
How does it not hold because you don't know of anyone making that proposition? You've shown in no way that it doesn't hold and I get the feeling that some theologians (while they would be offended by the way I worded the question) would essentially agree with the proposition.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 8)

Top