An absolute Proof that God Exists

Mr Skinner · 01-28-2007, 01:03 PM

Well...I'm not explaining the origin of the universe, I'm explaining the origin of 'god'...

The_Kelzor · 01-28-2007, 03:43 PM

well... according to you, the universe has always existed and therefore has no origin...

AnnonUSA · 01-28-2007, 03:53 PM

The universe is suspected of being just over 13 Billion Years old. The average Human Life span is 60-80 Solar Years. We are insignificant pieces of organic matter, origins will never be known by us.

Mr Skinner · 01-28-2007, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by The_Kelzor

well... according to you, the universe has always existed and therefore has no origin...

Once more...we're talking about 'god' here...not the universe...

The_Kelzor · 01-30-2007, 06:49 PM

i think the origins of the universe is very much on topic when it comes to a discussion about god

Mr Skinner · 01-30-2007, 06:54 PM

Yup...

Noone could explain the origin of the universe (sorry, I bucked up and said it existed forever...Annon corrected it) but the point still is: Before they realised this, they didn't know how to explain it's origin, so they blamed it on a 'god who'd existed forever and invented the universe'...

Had to spell it out, didn't I?

So this is about god, not the universe...

The_Kelzor · 02-08-2007, 01:38 PM

well my argument for the origins of the universe is that "it could very well be god"..your argument is "i dont know but its not god" so really you have no argument at all so i win by default..bitches

Mr Skinner · 02-08-2007, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by The_Kelzor

well my argument for the origins of the universe is that "it could very well be god"

This is another version where you say the force that created the universe is what ye call god:

Originally Posted by The_Kelzor

something ultra powerful enough to step outside the bounds of physical law is what i like to call God.

You call god what you can't explain...and some people use that as an argument for the existance of god...

What I can't explain, I call temporarily inexplicable...not god...that's just the easy way out...

TacoSusio · 02-08-2007, 08:06 PM

kelzor's argument for the existence of god is based on the origin of motion. so, the universe was nothing more than dominoes that kelzor's god set into motion.

if that's the case, then why even bother to acknowledge kelzor's god's existence, since the entire human race, past, present, and future (if any) is so utterly insignificant in this god's grand scheme of universe. moreover, the destiny of the universe has been preordained by whoever placed the dominoes, so there is absolutely no point in following any moral code or otherwise wasting time worshiping dieties because each of us is incapable of effecting any change that god would notice.

GodlessPothead · 02-09-2007, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by The_Kelzor

well my argument for the origins of the universe is that "it could very well be god"..your argument is "i dont know but its not god" so really you have no argument at all so i win by default..bitches

Um...no.

"Our" argument is that until you show evidence that it is god, we don't believe it.

To say that the universe could not have existed forever, so god must have created it, begs the question "Who created god?".

Turtles all the way down.

Mr Skinner · 02-09-2007, 03:51 AM

A'tuin?

stoned jude · 02-09-2007, 05:19 AM

turtles?

The_Kelzor · 02-12-2007, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by GodlessPothead

Um...no.
"Our" argument is that until you show evidence that it is god, we don't believe it.

that is not an argument that is a statment...

DanielTulip · 02-21-2007, 03:54 PM

This thread's 1st post is absolute proof that anyone can believe anything LOL

Fucking religion

Slutter McGee · 02-21-2007, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by DanielTulip

This thread's 1st post is absolute proof that anyone can believe anything LOL
Fucking religion

No it only applies to the concept of God, the greatest thing that can be imagined.

Slutter McGee

The_Kelzor · 02-22-2007, 04:23 PM

he is referring to the a priori ontological argument for gods existence made famous by Anselm and strongly rejected by philosphers like Aquinas, Hume, Kant, and Gaunilo.
The arguments which makes more sense to me are the Cosmological and the Teleological Arguments, especially the former. This argument, a posteriori in nature, argues for the necessity of a "prime mover" or a "first cause". The history of the universe is simply dominos lined up with the first domino being the very very first moment in time and the matter of the universe in its earlierst form, still and without motion because motion is essentially an effect. God must had pushed over the very first domino caused the divine chain reaction with He must have set up perfectly to form the universe in the way we have it now.
The Teleolgical Argument or the "Intelligent Design" Arguments was first made by William Paley and published in his 1802 book, Natural Theology. This pretty states the universe is too complicated to be all by accident. One example he uses is the "pocketwatch" idea, which basically goes like: If you were to walk through a field and find a rock you might say that this rock you might say this rock derived accidentily from nature, but if you were to find a pocketwatch laying in the field you would probably not say this watch with its complicated mechanisms that enable it to function was simply an accidental product of nature but that a watch maker must have created this device. In his view, We are the pocketwatch.

DanielTulip · 02-22-2007, 05:15 PM

All arguments for religion are ludacris. If one properly understands evolution you'll understand the motherfucking stupidity of the "watch in the field" argument.

The_Kelzor · 02-22-2007, 11:01 PM

ha...first of all these are not arguments for religion, just for the existence of god, secondly i like how you make such a bold statement that all of the philosophers like socrates, aristole, aquinas, and paley, people whom spent their entire lives contemplating with the use of knowledge and reason were completely and utterly wrong(what was the word ludacris) yet you dont make any attempt to refute or even to explain what you believe to be the priniciples of evolution. And just because Darwin basis evolution to be all accidental doesnt hold shit because that concept of it has yet to be proven i believe. and wouldnt you find it strange that proabably the smartest people ever to walk the earth, Einstein, Newton, Socrates, and i believe even Darwin all believed in a god. society is so crippled, philosophy is dead and if science cant explain or prove something than it must not exist. and it is as if athiests feel they have a monopoly on knowledge and if anyone thinks differently than they must be ignorant. bullshit. i would rather be ignorant with the likes of einstein and newton than "knowledgable" with some of the people promoting athiesm.