Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,868,055 members, 6,883,102 topics. Date: Friday, 27 May 2022 at 04:35 AM

My Argument For God's Existence - Religion (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / My Argument For God's Existence (2083 Views)

My Argument For God's Existence. / Atheist, What Would You Consider Evidence Of God's Existence? / Seun, Finally I Want To Give You An Undeniable Proof For God's Existence. (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Nobody: 9:17pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:

Bacteria live inside us having no idea of humans. And we live inside a galaxy having no idea that there might be something extraordinarily bigger than us. And yes, of course we think bacteria just don't have mental faculties to understand our existence. In facts, we just might not have mental faculties to understand God's existence. Fractal worlds.
If "Well we can't know that it isn't true" is your best argument for the existence of God... I remain skeptical.


NnennaG6:
There's a lot of talk here, but I think people (on both sides) need to remember this: science searches to answer how, not why. You can easily believe in both God and science because they are answering two fundementally different questions.
That's not true at all.

You can separate religion and science for awhile but they're inevitably going to come into conflict.

The problem is: both make claims about the way the world is. You can say that science doesn't try to make prescriptive claims or answer "why" questions but humans will use scientific knowledge to do these things and that will conflict with religions.

Both science and religion make mutually exclusive claims about the way the universe is; this puts them fundamentally at odds.

1 Like

Re: My Argument For God's Existence by NnennaG6(f): 9:21pm On Jan 22, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

If "Well we can't know that it isn't true" is your best argument for the existence of God... I remain skeptical.



That's not true at all.

You can separate religion and science for awhile but they're inevitably going to come into conflict.

The problem is: both make claims about the way the world is. You can say that science doesn't try to make prescriptive claims or answer "why" questions but humans will use scientific knowledge to do these things and that will conflict with religions.

Both science and religion make mutually exclusive claims about the way the universe is; this puts them fundamentally at odds.
Your argument doesn't follow through. Just because humans misuse science or religion doesn't mean that are conflicting. In reality, if you use science to and answer questions of why, than you aren't using science. In fact you have turned science into a religion at that point of which you use faith for the final result. An example of this is why we exist. If a scientist says "i don't know," they are a good scientist as no data has been shown to make a conclusion. On the other hand, if he says "there is no reason" than there is a claim based upon philosophical beliefs and no data to back it(hence no science involved) So no, they aren't fundamentally at odds, people using them to make logistical claims are misusing them.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Nobody: 9:36pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:

Your argument doesn't follow through. Just because humans misuse science or religion doesn't mean that are conflicting. In reality, if you use science to and answer questions of why, than you aren't using science. In fact you have turned science into a religion at that point of which you use faith for the final result. An example of this is why we exist. If a scientist says "i don't know," they are a good scientist as no data has been shown to make a conclusion. On the other hand, if he says "there is no reason" than there is a claim based upon philosophical beliefs and no data to back it(hence no science involved) So no, they aren't fundamentally at odds, people using them to make logistical claims are misusing them.
It's got nothing to do with misuse. I'm saying that both science and religion make claims about the way the world is.

Given that, when the time comes to make decisions regarding topics on which science and religion make mutually exclusive claims, there will by definition be a conflict.

1 Like

Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Hermes019: 9:46pm On Jan 22, 2019
Op do u think that belief in God(ur own description) can affect humanity in any way ?

If YES,please tell me how
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by NnennaG6(f): 9:46pm On Jan 22, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

It's got nothing to do with misuse. I'm saying that both science and religion make claims about the way the world is.

Given that, when the time comes to make decisions regarding topics on which science and religion make mutually exclusive claims, there will by definition be a conflict.
Here is the problem: you keep saying that religion and science make mutually exclusive claims, but they don't, if they do they aren't a good religion or a good science. In fact I would even ask you to show a topic of which they make this mutually exclusive claim you so speak of. This is still the same problem of why and how, even if on same topic. This doesn't mean they conflict, or even need to conflict for that matter.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by plaetton: 9:49pm On Jan 22, 2019
1StopRudeness:


What branch of science did u study to disprove God's existence...?? Or u just one of the bandwagon riding mocking biblical doctrines and what u read online??..from the ops post ...do u even know what faith is outside the biblical context??
I've done an appreciable amount of study....I'm 100percent sure an entity designed the building blocks of what makes you and I up cos u need to see see the unwinding of the DNA helix.....it's a wonder I must say...is it God? Mayb, mayb not....it would be irrational to say nobody made it.it doesn't look like something nobody made
look......Science is really young, there have been different forms of knowledge long before the Bible came and science came. Its just irritating when u Nigerian atheist have no argument asides the biblical bashing.
let's not overflog this issue... If there are no great scientist like Isaac newton and the likes dead and alive who believe in the God factor I would have tagged science the problem.....science isn't the issue....it's a human thing. We all have the different level of what our mentality can accomodate......peace
I wonder if you get it at all.
You believe in something, an idea, a primitive idea at that, not based on evidence, but based more on your need to fill an emptiness in a gaping question.
Believing that an uncreated being created the universe is probably the most irrational argument an intelligent mind can make. For example, if God designed and created the universe, why must there be one god? Why not 2, 3 , 100 or a million other ? And then ,of course, who created God or those other gods?

1 Like

Re: My Argument For God's Existence by NnennaG6(f): 9:53pm On Jan 22, 2019
Hermes019:
Op do u think that belief in God(ur own description) can affect humanity in any way ?

If YES,please tell me how
How belief in a deity effects people is subjective to how seriously a person adheres to a certain religion or not. Or if not part of a religious faith - how it effects people through others.

Then it depends how fervently individuals follow the law of that particular religion to the degree it effects them. If taken very seriously it will be a predominant force in their lives. If people are loyal to the teachings - this will influence hugely their conscience, values (of right from wrong), their actions, and ultimately who they become.

Religion teaches and builds on a person's "faith" in God and goodness", which can have a positive effect on their mental health strengthening and protecting individuals against despair - as instead of giving up when troubles and adversity strikes, even in the face of death - they believe with God's help that goodness will win in the end and all will be well leaving it in God's hands. Even when losing a loved one - they believe they will be joined together again one day and not all is lost.

This faith which religion teaches can help people believe in themselves, as when they do their best God will do the rest, giving them the added strength through his grace to achieve and get through anything. That is great faith in action when up against the odds, and the effects on a person is an inner peace that the world cannot give.

Religion can be a big deal and have an enormous effect on people either for the positive or negative. If the religion does not have moral leaders and Godly example - it can be to a person's downfall if he/she cannot think objectively calling out a snake or fraud. If it's a virtuous leader, it can develop virtue and goodwill, and make the world a better place.

All depends if God's law of love is upheld, interpretated correctly and is a genuine religion (not a cult); - or if the religion's laws are misinterpreted by leaders made up of wolves in sheeps clothing, to brainwash people for personal power and selfish gain (i.e. The Pharisees and certain individuals using God's name to brainwash others to commit Godless acts for political power). The latter can lead to a vulnerable person's ruin - here and for eternity.

A good foundation to test the credibility of any religion I ask myself "if what they teach/preach is advocating love or harm?". If it is the latter it is false and can adversely effect a person's life. If the former it can transform a person from within and hugely enrich their lives.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Nobody: 9:58pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:

Here is the problem: you keep saying that religion and science make mutually exclusive claims, but they don't, if they do they aren't a good religion or a good science. In fact I would even ask you to show a topic of which they make this mutually exclusive claim you so speak of.
Both science and religion make mutually exclusive claims about the nature of the universe. For example, some religions claims that the universe is 6,000 - 10,000 years old (depending on how you read the Bible). Scientifically speaking, this claim has no merit and ~14 billion years is the accepted value. If you don't deny that there's a difference between a few thousand and 14 billion, i'm not sure how to help you.

If you have a religion that contains a claim like "the Bible is the perfect, literal, and inerrant word of the creator of the universe" (as many people do) then you're not capable of being a good believer and a good scientist at the same time.

NnennaG6:
This is still the same problem of why and how, even if on same topic. This doesn't mean they conflict, or even need to conflict for that matter.
The fundamental issue here is: the knowledge you gain from science will necessarily lead you to conclusions about the way the world is and how you ought to behave. The religious instruction you receive will give you conflicting motivation to do the same. We see this manifest in people all the time.

You can sit in an ivory tower and claim non-overlapping magisteria until the cows come home, but once you put scientific information or religious information into the hands of real people they're going to act on that information and the conclusions they'll reach will necessarily conflict.

1 Like

Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Hermes019: 9:58pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:

How belief in a deity effects people is subjective to how seriously a person adheres to a certain religion or not. Or if not part of a religious faith - how it effects people through others.

Then it depends how fervently individuals follow the law of that particular religion to the degree it effects them. If taken very seriously it will be a predominant force in their lives. If people are loyal to the teachings - this will influence hugely their conscience, values (of right from wrong), their actions, and ultimately who they become.

Religion teaches and builds on a person's "faith" in God and goodness", which can have a positive effect on their mental health strengthening and protecting individuals against despair - as instead of giving up when troubles and adversity strikes, even in the face of death - they believe with God's help that goodness will win in the end and all will be well leaving it in God's hands. Even when losing a loved one - they believe they will be joined together again one day and not all is lost.

This faith which religion teaches can help people believe in themselves, as when they do their best God will do the rest, giving them the added strength through his grace to achieve and get through anything. That is great faith in action when up against the odds, and the effects on a person is an inner peace that the world cannot give.

Religion can be a big deal and have an enormous effect on people either for the positive or negative. If the religion does not have moral leaders and Godly example - it can be to a person's downfall if he/she cannot think objectively calling out a snake or fraud. If it's a virtuous leader, it can develop virtue and goodwill, and make the world a better place.

All depends if God's law of love is upheld, interpretated correctly and is a genuine religion (not a cult); - or if the religion's laws are misinterpreted by leaders made up of wolves in sheeps clothing, to brainwash people for personal power and selfish gain (i.e. The Pharisees and certain individuals using God's name to brainwash others to commit Godless acts for political power). The latter can lead to a vulnerable person's ruin - here and for eternity.

A good foundation to test the credibility of any religion I ask myself "if what they teach/preach is advocating love or harm?". If it is the latter it is false and can adversely effect a person's life. If the former it can transform a person from within and hugely enrich their lives.
Actually I thought ur description of God was different from that of theists but ur answer says otherwise,I wanted to know how belief in God(ur own description of God) could affect us

Please could u define "God" and maybe mentions his features,is he senient,is he omnipotent,is he interested in human affairs and stuff like that
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by LordReed(m): 10:00pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:
@XxSabrinaxX, TheArranger, LordReed & plaetton
Bacteria live inside us having no idea of humans. And we live inside a galaxy having no idea that there might be something extraordinarily bigger than us. And yes, of course we think bacteria just don't have mental faculties to understand our existence. In facts, we just might not have mental faculties to understand God's existence. Fractal worlds.
There's a lot of talk here, but I think people (on both sides) need to remember this: science searches to answer how, not why. You can easily believe in both God and science because they are answering two fundementally different questions.

How do you go from, "I can't comprehend the god" to "I know the god exists and its name is Yahweh"?
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by LordReed(m): 10:01pm On Jan 22, 2019
NPComplete:


I have said it before here. I have no logical reason why I believe such a thing. I am just unable to believe there is no God. The world has more meaning to me this way. Whether that God is the universe itself or not is what I don't know. And, like Cicero said, I am not ashamed to admit that I am ignorant of the things I do not know.

But what I know for sure is that that God doesn't care whether u believe in him or not. And he sure as hell aint any Abrahamic god. As far as the evidence and what I can prove can show, that's what I believe.

I like your candor.

1 Like

Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Hermes019: 10:06pm On Jan 22, 2019
Something I have to point out here

Op people define God in various ways,when we (or at least I) say we are atheists we are making iur claims putting the conventional description of God into perspective,so if you come up to say God exists u might want to tell us what u mean by God
In ur posts u have hinted towards a deist kind of description but quoting religious views haven't really helped out
If you say that God is the first cause and nothing more than that stick to it,if you say that God is the universe and everything in it then stick to it,if you say that God is an abstract thing that can not be understood by human minds,stick to it
Not telling us that God is this and next,u are using religious Philosophy to back up what u are saying

1 Like

Re: My Argument For God's Existence by LordReed(m): 10:18pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:

How belief in a deity effects people is subjective to how seriously a person adheres to a certain religion or not. Or if not part of a religious faith - how it effects people through others.

Then it depends how fervently individuals follow the law of that particular religion to the degree it effects them. If taken very seriously it will be a predominant force in their lives. If people are loyal to the teachings - this will influence hugely their conscience, values (of right from wrong), their actions, and ultimately who they become.

Religion teaches and builds on a person's "faith" in God and goodness", which can have a positive effect on their mental health strengthening and protecting individuals against despair - as instead of giving up when troubles and adversity strikes, even in the face of death - they believe with God's help that goodness will win in the end and all will be well leaving it in God's hands. Even when losing a loved one - they believe they will be joined together again one day and not all is lost.

This faith which religion teaches can help people believe in themselves, as when they do their best God will do the rest, giving them the added strength through his grace to achieve and get through anything. That is great faith in action when up against the odds, and the effects on a person is an inner peace that the world cannot give.

Religion can be a big deal and have an enormous effect on people either for the positive or negative. If the religion does not have moral leaders and Godly example - it can be to a person's downfall if he/she cannot think objectively calling out a snake or fraud. If it's a virtuous leader, it can develop virtue and goodwill, and make the world a better place.

All depends if God's law of love is upheld, interpretated correctly and is a genuine religion (not a cult); - or if the religion's laws are misinterpreted by leaders made up of wolves in sheeps clothing, to brainwash people for personal power and selfish gain (i.e. The Pharisees and certain individuals using God's name to brainwash others to commit Godless acts for political power). The latter can lead to a vulnerable person's ruin - here and for eternity.

A good foundation to test the credibility of any religion I ask myself "if what they teach/preach is advocating love or harm?". If it is the latter it is false and can adversely effect a person's life. If the former it can transform a person from within and hugely enrich their lives.

In my case the reverse was my experience, I couldn't function because I had been taught to "cast all your cares upon him" and "lean not on your own understanding. These I internalised to the point were I was " broken", that nebulous spiritual state you are told to strive for so that the god's will overrides yours.

Well guess what, my faith overrode everything to the point that I couldn't even choose what to eat without leaning on the "spiritual" or the "holy spirit". That I tell you is a deep hole that even now without faith in god or gods the effects still reverberates in my life. I couldn't make decisions without praying and so I became indecisive. Now I have to work all that bullshït out of my system.

These so called spiritual teachings make a dependency junky out you plain and simple.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by NnennaG6(f): 10:19pm On Jan 22, 2019
Hermes019:

Actually I thought ur description of God was different from that of theists but ur answer says otherwise,I wanted to know how belief in God(ur own description of God) could affect us

Please could u define "God" and maybe mentions his features,is he senient,is he omnipotent,is he interested in human affairs and stuff like that
I don't understand your first question. What did you understand from my initial response? How belief in God affects people is subjective. Re-read my response more carefully.

I'd describe God as possessing the following attributes:
1. Omnipotence
2. Omniscience
3. Omnipresence
4. Perfection
5. Everlasting

Others might add “Omnibenevolent” and “Love,” but I left them out. These terms require either an object or a comparison, which would be impossible, as the previous five qualities preclude creation.

LordReed:


How do you go from, "I can't comprehend the god" to "I know the god exists and its name is Yahweh"?
I'm not changing goal posts. The whole point of my thread is to explain how objective evidence can't be given for the existence of a deity.

XxSabrinaxX:

Both science and religion make mutually exclusive claims about the nature of the universe. For example, some religions claims that the universe is 6,000 - 10,000 years old (depending on how you read the Bible). Scientifically speaking, this claim has no merit and ~14 billion years is the accepted value. If you don't deny that there's a difference between a few thousand and 14 billion, i'm not sure how to help you.

If you have a religion that contains a claim like "the Bible is the perfect, literal, and inerrant word of the creator of the universe" (as many people do) then you're not capable of being a good believer and a good scientist at the same time.


The fundamental issue here is: the knowledge you gain from science will necessarily lead you to conclusions about the way the world is and how you ought to behave. The religious instruction you receive will give you conflicting motivation to do the same. We see this manifest in people all the time.

You can sit in an ivory tower and claim non-overlapping magisteria until the cows come home, but once you put scientific information or religious information into the hands of real people they're going to act on that information and the conclusions they'll reach will necessarily conflict.
Those claims of years of creation are seen as a story. It wasn't to be used for literal translation, but just means a long time ago. It's the same as when you tell as story to your friends and say "when I was like 8-9 years old." The important thing isn't the age, but in fact that It was when you were younger. Next thing, you said that "if you take it by literal translation." You should absolutely never take anything as literal translation in the Bible, especially in the case of Old Testament, unless you actually think everyone religious believes a giant flood wiped out the whole world except for about 6-8 people (hint we don't). Also just like assuming 100% of science is real and correct, believing 100% of religion is real is bad religion. It's called extremism and despite your claims, a majority of people AREN'T extremists. Lastly you again go to the claim that "once you put it in the hands of people." It doesn't matter what is put in the hands of people. If it's bad religion it's bad religion, if it's bad science, it's bad science. Also you are using science as some end all solve all, again putting faith behind it. How you ought to behave isn't testable. You can't put behavior in a beaker and say what it will react with. Science and religion don't conflict unless you take it to the extreme and believe 100% of it all the time.

P.S. multiple religion have already stated the story of creationism taken literally isn't what they believe in.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Myth121(m): 10:25pm On Jan 22, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

If "Well we can't know that it isn't true" is your best argument for the existence of God... I remain skeptical.
I mean... Yeah. That's kind of the nature of the entire argument. You can't prove that there is a god and you can't prove that there isn't. At a certain point it comes down to personal belief. Though, as a side note: disproving the existence of god and disproving the beliefs of an organized religion are very different things.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Nobody: 10:30pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:

Those claims of years of creation are seen as a story. It wasn't to be used for literal translation, but just means a long time ago. It's the same as when you tell as story to your friends and say "when I was like 8-9 years old." The important thing isn't the age, but in fact that It was when you were younger. Next thing, you said that "if you take it by literal translation." You should absolutely never take anything as literal translation in the Bible, especially in the case of Old Testament, unless you actually think everyone religious believes a giant flood wiped out the whole world except for about 6-8 people (hint we don't). Also just like assuming 100% of science is real and correct, believing 100% of religion is real is bad religion. It's called extremism and despite your claims, a majority of people AREN'T extremists. Lastly you again go to the claim that "once you put it in the hands of people." It doesn't matter what is put in the hands of people. If it's bad religion it's bad religion, if it's bad science, it's bad science. Also you are using science as some end all solve all, again putting faith behind it. How you ought to behave isn't testable. You can't put behavior in a beaker and say what it will react with. Science and religion don't conflict unless you take it to the extreme and believe 100% of it all the time.

P.S. multiple religion have already stated the story of creationism taken literally isn't what they believe in.
You're just redefining things you disagree with as "bad science" or "bad religion". Smh
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Nobody: 10:31pm On Jan 22, 2019
Myth121:

I mean... Yeah. That's kind of the nature of the entire argument. You can't prove that there is a god and you can't prove that there isn't. At a certain point it comes down to personal belief. Though, as a side note: disproving the existence of god and disproving the beliefs of an organized religion are very different things.
Lol. Burden of proof fallacy in action.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by TheArranger(m): 10:37pm On Jan 22, 2019
Myth121:

You can't prove that there is a god and you can't prove that there isn't.
You can say the same about leprechauns, unicorns, and Hogwarts.

Why believe in god, but not leprechauns? They have equal evidence, and leprechauns are far less extraordinary.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by NnennaG6(f): 10:45pm On Jan 22, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

You're just redefining things you disagree with as "bad science" or "bad religion". Smh
It's not redefining, it's just happens to be a perspective you don't want to accept because it doesn't fit your own narrative. If you take literal translation of religious text, you are in fact practicing bad religion. A book that has been retranslated based on other translations (over 3 different languages) is bound to lose content and get sections incorrect. So yes if you believe in a book literally, especially one that has been translated multiple times, you are practicing bad religion. It's like reading Harry Potter and assuming there is a world of wizards and other things instead of looking for what the author's message behind the story. As same with science. If you try to use it as a solve-all, end all you have committed bad science. Unless you want to say all science is correct, like the link between autism and vaccines (not real), bleeding people out when sick (e.g. George Washington death), or other things of the nature. There have been many instance science has been wrong. There are many questions that science can't answer. Saying that science will answer everything is a faith on its own.

TheArranger:

You can say the same about leprechauns, unicorns, and Hogwarts.

Why believe in god, but not leprechauns? They have equal evidence, and leprechauns are far less extraordinary.
That's not really a good example though. God isn't some mythological creature, it's an idea about the forces that move the universe. God is an answer some people have come up with to a question no one knows the answer to.

Personally, I think that God is all life, and any living thing is a part of that God. We all split off from the cells of our ancestors, we're all essentially one organism that does a real good job of convincing itself that it's separate from itself. We are the universe experiencing itself, "I am he, As you are he, As you are me, And we are all together," you know, that sort of thing.

Sorry, I know you didn't come here to hear my hippie philosophy but I just think that oversimplifying what God might be is just doing yourself a disservice. You don't have to agree with me, but it's healthy to consider the different schools of thought.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Nobody: 10:55pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:

It's not redefining, it's just happens to be a perspective you don't want to accept because it doesn't fit your own narrative. If you take literal translation of religious text, you are in fact practicing bad religion. A book that has been retranslated based on other translations (over 3 different languages) is bound to lose content and get sections incorrect. So yes if you believe in a book literally, especially one that has been translated multiple times, you are practicing bad religion. It's like reading Harry Potter and assuming there is a world of wizards and other things instead of looking for what the author's message behind the story. As same with science. If you try to use it as a solve-all, end all you have committed bad science. Unless you want to say all science is correct, like the link between autism and vaccines (not real), bleeding people out when sick (e.g. George Washington death), or other things of the nature. There have been many instance science has been wrong. There are many questions that science can't answer. Saying that science will answer everything is a faith on its own.
[img]https://media1./images/e5d22a5383efeb4365bd39a8a9d9a94a/tenor.gif[/img]
How can you say that any interpretation of a holy text is more correct than another? You have 0 ability to interact with or test the subject matter at hand. You can't communicate with god or with any dead prophets.

You're just defining your favorite method of theological interpretation as correct and calling the other ones false. This is precisely what extreamists and literalists do, you're on no better footing epistemologicaly.

This is the problem with religious belief in general: at bottom, no one can test anything; and that nebulousness, that justification by faith, allows people to value whatever it is they want and believe it somehow comports with reality.

No one is claiming that science is infallible or that it hasn't been wrong in the past. Science is just a method for making models based on available data. It's only as good as the data and the model-makers. That said, it's demonstrably the best system humans have ever had for discovering truths about our universe. So rip on it all you like, it's the best we've got.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by NnennaG6(f): 11:04pm On Jan 22, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

[img]https://media1./images/e5d22a5383efeb4365bd39a8a9d9a94a/tenor.gif[/img]
How can you say that any interpretation of a holy text is more correct than another? You have 0 ability to interact with or test the subject matter at hand. You can't communicate with god or with any dead prophets.

You're just defining your favorite method of theological interpretation as correct and calling the other ones false. This is precisely what extreamists and literalists do, you're on no better footing epistemologicaly.

This is the problem with religious belief in general: at bottom, no one can test anything; and that nebulousness, that justification by faith, allows people to value whatever it is they want and believe it somehow comports with reality.

No one is claiming that science is infallible or that it hasn't been wrong in the past. Science is just a method for making models based on available data. It's only as good as the data and the model-makers. That said, it's demonstrably the best system humans have ever had for discovering truths about our universe. So rip on it all you like, it's the best we've got.
I'm not ripping on science. In fact I have stated if not in this post, that in other posts in this thread that I believe in science and it is silly not to. However, in this takes faith that you don't want to believe, cause somehow you have convinced yourself that science = truth, yet reality and senses could all be retrospective and wrong. The problem with science is that to there is a belief that it can solve everything of which it cannot. Also I hate to break it to you but according to Thomas Kuhn, science does this exact same thing with the accepted and non accepted. He claims the scientists only believe in the generally accepted methods and choose which theory best solves the problems knowing it can't solve all problems or even sometimes the former theory could solve problems the new one can't. A.k.a these theories don't lead to the truth, but just solve problems we need it too. Sounds a lot like faith doesn't it? A lot of other science philosophers/scientists have agreed upon views like his. Also just because you can't communicate or speak directly to God or the prophets doesn't make anything less valid.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by BlakKluKluxKlan(m): 11:07pm On Jan 22, 2019
NPComplete:


The usual petulance, acute lack of comprehension and display of religious ignorance and self-deprecation.

Pray, clown, point out where the insults are in her post. Or the display of arrogance you sensed. Failing that just admit u are overwhelmed by the quality of the counter arguments the lady put forth and decided ad hominem was your best recourse.

Your cognitive resonance is under diminishing returns which excludes you from a response.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by TheArranger(m): 11:11pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:

That's not really a good example though. God isn't some mythological creature, it's an idea about the forces that move the universe.
God is by definition a mythological creature. There are tons of myths of creatures created to explain the forces of the universe.


NnennaG6:
God is an answer some people have come up with to a question no one knows the answer to.
"Magic Man did it" is not an answer. It's not an answer and it's not even particularly useful. The only proper answer to a question you don't know the answer to is "I don't know."
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by NnennaG6(f): 11:18pm On Jan 22, 2019
TheArranger:

"Magic Man did it" is not an answer. It's not an answer and it's not even particularly useful. The only proper answer to a question you don't know the answer to is "I don't know."
Under a very specific school of thought that is common in parts of Nigeria, yes, you're right. But there are a lot more ideas of what God is in the world. By simplifying the concept and only looking at one group's definition you're shutting out new ideas.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Nobody: 11:40pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:

I'm not ripping on science. In fact I have stated if not in this post, that in other posts in this thread that I believe in science and it is silly not to. However, in this takes faith that you don't want to believe, cause somehow you have convinced yourself that science = truth, yet reality and senses could all be retrospective and wrong. The problem with science is that to there is a belief that it can solve everything of which it cannot. Also I hate to break it to you but according to Thomas Kuhn, science does this exact same thing with the accepted and non accepted. He claims the scientists only believe in the generally accepted methods and choose which theory best solves the problems knowing it can't solve all problems or even sometimes the former theory could solve problems the new one can't. A.k.a these theories don't lead to the truth, but just solve problems we need it too. Sounds a lot like faith doesn't it? A lot of other science philosophers/scientists have agreed upon views like his. Also just because you can't communicate or speak directly to God or the prophets doesn't make anything less valid.
Again:
* I'm not claiming that science is perfect.
* I'm not claiming that science solves solipsism.
* I'm not claiming that science allows us to be absolutely metaphysically certain about anything.
What I am claiming is:
Science is demonstrably the best method we have ever had for learning new things about the world.
Any religious claims you make are necessarily interpreted, subjective, and without measurable basis in reality. You can claim that scientists pick which theories they accept but these decisions are not based on preference or subjectivity; rather, they're based primarily on empirical evidence.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by NnennaG6(f): 11:47pm On Jan 22, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

Again:
* I'm not claiming that science is perfect.
* I'm not claiming that science solves solipsism.
* I'm not claiming that science allows us to be absolutely metaphysically certain about anything.
What I am claiming is:
Science is demonstrably the best method we have ever had for learning new things about the world.
Any religious claims you make are necessarily interpreted, subjective, and without measurable basis in reality. You can claim that scientists pick which theories they accept but these decisions are not based on preference or subjectivity; rather, they're based primarily on empirical evidence.
Well then, I should throw logic outside the window. After all you can't test logic. It is the best method for finding quantifiable data within the world certainly. But there are inherent concepts that aren't quantifiable/testable that are outside the realm of science . Logic is one of them. Religion may also be one of them. If anything these claims of science as truth all tie into senses must being factual. Since we cannot know without logic, we cannot assume that only testable theories are true.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Nobody: 11:59pm On Jan 22, 2019
NnennaG6:

Well then, I should throw logic outside the window. After all you can't test logic. It is the best method for finding quantifiable data within the world certainly. But there are inherent concepts that aren't quantifiable/testable that are outside the realm of science . Logic is one of them. Religion may also be one of them. If anything these claims of science as truth all tie into senses must being factual. Since we cannot know without logic, we cannot assume that only testable theories are true.
[img]https://media1./images/36e070cd26b3ef483dec6cf723226003/tenor.gif[/img]
You're attempting to make a logical argument against logic here; I'm not sure you'd fully appreciate the irony grin grin.

Furthermore, logic is HIGHLY testable. It's probably the most (implicitly) tested method of all time. Do you not understand that science, philosophy, and mathematics all rely on and test logic daily?
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by NnennaG6(f): 12:06am On Jan 23, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

[img]https://media1./images/36e070cd26b3ef483dec6cf723226003/tenor.gif[/img]
You're attempting to make a logical argument against logic here; I'm not sure you'd fully appreciate the irony grin grin.

Furthermore, logic is HIGHLY testable. It's probably the most (implicitly) tested method of all time. Do you not understand that science, philosophy, and mathematics all rely on and test logic daily?
You realize the point was to show that science can't prove everything, not that logic isn't testable yes? In fact what you just said is basically agreeing with my whole argument of science isn't the only method. And yes that was the point of the irony. It was to show that not everything is "testable." In fact even in philosophy that is mentioned by Plato often. Unless of course you have been arguing science in Socratic context this whole time of which we are basically arguing the same thing except that for some reason your classifying religion as a quantity instead of a spiritual (this is mentioned in philosophy) which still comes back to it not being some outlandish thing that conflicts with science.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Nobody: 12:15am On Jan 23, 2019
NnennaG6:

You realize the point was to show that science can't prove everything, not that logic isn't testable yes? In fact what you just said is basically agreeing with my whole argument of science isn't the only method. And yes that was the point of the irony. It was to show that not everything is "testable." In fact even in philosophy that is mentioned by Plato often. Unless of course you have been arguing science in Socratic context this whole time of which we are basically arguing the same thing except that for some reason your classifying religion as a quantity instead of a spiritual (this is mentioned in philosophy) which still comes back to it not being some outlandish thing that conflicts with science.
No, I'm not agreeing with you at all. I'm saying that logic is testable and we do test it all the time.

I never said science is the only method humans can use (hell, guessing is a method) I said it's the best method.

Science has the property of being logical and uses logical reasoning when arriving at conclusions.

I'm not seeing how any of this relates to your point.

[img]https://media1./images/a8c6d589afe31bd35928ef60aa6755df/tenor.gif[/img]

1 Like

Re: My Argument For God's Existence by Nobody: 3:24am On Jan 23, 2019
NnennaG6:

Perhaps your conception of God is wrong, which is why you find it so easy to dismiss. The idea of a literal magical man in the sky is of course absurd. Do you know that's what average Theists mean when they say God? Because to me it seems, apart from the dogmatic literalists, that most are referring to the same thing as I am - fate, the universe, causes and effects that are so complex as to be mystical to us etc. What do you mean by external existence?


It's not fantasy because it's physically real. In the same way that entropy or time is physically real, even though it isn't a distinct 'entity' of matter or energy. God is a property of the universe that you have to notice personally.
Majority of theists see God as a deity,not a driving force. Most consider God as the abrahamaic God.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by NPComplete: 4:57am On Jan 23, 2019
BlakKluKluxKlan:


Your cognitive resonance is under diminishing returns which excludes you from a response.

What does this nonsense mean? You just want to use words, right? That explains ur initial reply that I quoted. No point. No sense. Not even a pretence of intelligence. Just words. Empty words. I feel sorry for u and the inadequacies u are severely overcompensating for.
Re: My Argument For God's Existence by LordReed(m): 6:19am On Jan 23, 2019
NnennaG6:

I

I'm not changing goal posts. The whole point of my thread is to explain how objective evidence can't be given for the existence of a deity.



My question is how do you acquire specific knowledge of the god when you say it is incomprehensible and cannot be investigated, that sounds like a gigantic contradiction to me.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply)

Book of Ephesians (*principalities, powers, rulers of darkness of this world) / I Have Done More For Christianity Than Jesus - Trump / Separation Of 'Muslim' And 'Christian' Sections Under 'Religion'

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2022 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 386
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.