A Challenge to Theists

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

START

Get an Idea: God Exists

Perform Experiment: See if creation exists

You're hurting your own cause here. You assume that because Creation exists (which it certainly doesn't) you are limited in determining that God exists. If we disprove creation (which we have), we disprove god.

Does the evidence support the theory: Creation exists, thus a creator must exist. This being must be able to create the whole universe and thus would be considered as God.

You haven't proven a thing. You have neglected to define everything, and moreover, you have failed to prove that creation exists.

There ya go. Logically, if there is creation then there is a creator. And logically if this being is able to create a universe. Then he must be a higher being then us seeing as how we can't create anything, much less a universe. A higher being would be a supreme being. Thus he would be God.
So I have just logically proved that God exists.

You have assume that there is creation. Please, give me proof to creation.

[vtmarik]

Pascal's Wager is also fundamentally flawed.

The wager is that if by believing you go to Heaven rather than hell, why not believe in case God does exist. That way you won't lose.


The problem is that if one believes simply to avoid hell, that is a lie. Lies send you to hell. So, then you have everything to lose.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

I am extending a challenge to all theists (Christians, Theistic Buddhists, Ba'hai, Muslims, Jews, etc.):

Rationally explain why you believe that there is a deity. Using accepted logic (for a list of fallacious arguments, go to fallacyfiles.org), define each step along the way that provides you proof as to the existence of a deity. If you quote from a source (Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc.) as a method of supporting your arguments, give a rigorous explanation as to why the source is valid to quote from without using any tautologies. Be sure to quantify all concepts and axioms that may be vague, arbitrary, or otherwise appearing to be illogical.

If you can beat my logic with better, rational logic, I will concede that there is a god.

For a bonus, if you can present to me evidence that would prove your religious ideology to be the most rational, I will not only accept your religion as the more rational philosophy, but I will argue for it whenever these debates come up.

However, if you cannot overcome my challenge, you must explain why you still hold on to your beliefs, in face of overwhelming intellectual odds.

Challang to all rationalists:

Prove that rational thinking is the only correct way to the truth without being circular

I already stated why in the beginning, but this isn't the place for that. Create another thread if you want that discussion.

[vtmarik]

This sort of thing isn't about truth, it's about fact. If you want to search for truth, take a philosophy course.

[DemonHunter]

I can prove that God exists. Look out the window. Do you see the world? If you see the world then you know that some higher power exists.

This is simply a watchmakers argument in the making.

I don't know what a watchmakers argumement is.
However, how can the world have created itself?

Now don't try and say that the world created itself because that makes no sense whatsoever.

Poisoning the well, a logical fallacy. In short, you're creating a preemptive ad hominem and not addressing the merits of the concepts.

I understood about half of that. And I will rephrase what I said and apologize. It doesn't make sense to me that the universe created itself.

A bottle of Pepsi cannot create itself, a rock cannot create itself and the universe cannot do it either.

So, if I may break this down to its syllogistic core, you're stating the following:

Premise: X is too complex to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
Premise: Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient being.
Premise: God is that sentient being.
Premise: Therefore, God exists.

Yes, I'm not saying the God of the Bible exists. I'm say a higher being exists with the ability to create things.
And my point was that the Universe can not create itself.

The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of creation merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is non-sequitur logic. You are describing objects as "complex" or "ordered", which implies that a deity has ordered them. However we know this to be patently false as there are examples of systems which are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes (snowflakes, diamonds, stalacites, etc.).

Again, I understood about half of that. But I think I understood enough.
There is a huge difference between the complexity of a snowflake and that of the human brain.

The watered down designed claim you are using in nothing but an argument from ignorance, since it unexplained and unsupported. You're making the huge assumption that natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore they both must be designed. However, different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light bulbs. You must therefore demonstrate that only a sentient being can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.

How can you believe that everything in the world was created by random chance? I mean this with all due respect and without meaning to offend. But to me it just sounds silly for someone to say it's illogical to believe in a higher being with the power to create order and then turn around and say it could all happen by chance.

Now you will probably want to say, well where did God come from, if the universe can't create itself then how can God? And I will reply, God IS. And that's it.

Suppressed premise. You have failed to state how you have rationally concluded that god exists. "Just because" is not a valid method of debate, or logic.

I didn't say just because. As I stated above, I believe that creation is enough to prove a creator exists.

Using your own logic, I could just as well claim that god does not exist "just because", and still maintain the validity of your argument.

I don't understand what you mean.

Now you could also reply that the universe IS. But if you believe that, then you run into a few problems.

Oh, really?

I believe so. How did the universe come into being if not by God.

God has always been. I don't see any reason why not. But then again I've never searched for a reason why God can't have existed forever

Do you mind proving how gods always been using logical measures, and defining each step along the way?

Creation exists, thus a creator exists. Logically this makes sense to me. How can a painting exist without a painter?

However, the Universe shows signs of deterioration. Therefore it cannot have always been.

False. The universe is showing signs of expansion, not deterioration.

Um, the sun is slowly dying, stars are exploding.

God is infinite.

Prove to me this.

I can't. This is what my religion teaches and what I choose to believe.

The universe happens to be finite.

Again, false, or at least intellectually dishonest. Various sciences as well as mathematical proofs have proved the universe to be expanding (and while this may imply a finite universe in the observable universe, it doesn't make it so when theoretical universe is applied), it's still not known whether the universe is finite. Moreover, you're vague in defining finite, as pointed out above.

Finite means having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable. If the universe is expanding as you say, then it is finite.

Thus, we can conclude that your premise stated here:

Now you could also reply that the universe IS. But if you believe that, then you run into a few problems.

is total trash, and not supported by any logical or rational means.

If the sun and stars are running out of fuel. Then they can't have been going forever.

I'd love to continue this debate but I ask that it not be turned into a flame war.

It'll only turn into a flame war if you let it.

But if I may critique

Critique away.

[DemonHunter]

START

Get an Idea: God Exists

Perform Experiment: See if creation exists

You're hurting your own cause here. You assume that because Creation exists (which it certainly doesn't) you are limited in determining that God exists. If we disprove creation (which we have), we disprove god.

Does the evidence support the theory: Creation exists, thus a creator must exist. This being must be able to create the whole universe and thus would be considered as God.

You haven't proven a thing. You have neglected to define everything, and moreover, you have failed to prove that creation exists.

There ya go. Logically, if there is creation then there is a creator. And logically if this being is able to create a universe. Then he must be a higher being then us seeing as how we can't create anything, much less a universe. A higher being would be a supreme being. Thus he would be God.
So I have just logically proved that God exists.

You have assume that there is creation. Please, give me proof to creation.

By Creation I mean the world, the universe, etc.

[vtmarik]

START

Get an Idea: God Exists

Perform Experiment: See if creation exists

You're hurting your own cause here. You assume that because Creation exists (which it certainly doesn't) you are limited in determining that God exists. If we disprove creation (which we have), we disprove god.

Does the evidence support the theory: Creation exists, thus a creator must exist. This being must be able to create the whole universe and thus would be considered as God.

You haven't proven a thing. You have neglected to define everything, and moreover, you have failed to prove that creation exists.

There ya go. Logically, if there is creation then there is a creator. And logically if this being is able to create a universe. Then he must be a higher being then us seeing as how we can't create anything, much less a universe. A higher being would be a supreme being. Thus he would be God.
So I have just logically proved that God exists.

You have assume that there is creation. Please, give me proof to creation.

By Creation I mean the world, the universe, etc.

In actuality you mean the end products of Creation, not the process itself.

[2dimes]

First, I'll begin with the counter wager: You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

That's something Jesus kept saying to the pharisees. They were so absorbed with doing the things they determined to be the right way as recorded in their laws.

Often failing to be benevolent, which was something Jesus insisted was required by the very God they were attempting to serve.

[2dimes]

This sort of thing isn't about truth, it's about fact. If you want to search for truth, take a philosophy course.

Would they present absolute truth or just that person's perception or concept of truth?

Or is it the notion that through philophy you will learn, obtain or create truth?

What is truth, is it real and there is only one or is it relitive like is commonly believed in modern western society?

[vtmarik]

This sort of thing isn't about truth, it's about fact. If you want to search for truth, take a philosophy course.

Would they present absolute truth or just that person's perception or concept of truth?

Or is it the notion that through philophy you will learn, obtain or create truth?

What is truth, is it real and there is only one or is it relitive like is commonly believed in modern western society?

Good questions.

[khazalid]

P-P P-Q > P&Q Q,P > R R&P&Q:

[unriggable]

However, how can the world have created itself?

It wasn't 'the world' at some point - if you believe everything has a gravetic force, then you can believe that a large asteroid would attract smaller ones, and over time the asteroid bundle gets larger and larger, then you can believe that planets create themselves.

I understood about half of that. And I will rephrase what I said and apologize. It doesn't make sense to me that the universe created itself.

Yes, I'm not saying the God of the Bible exists. I'm say a higher being exists with the ability to create things.
And my point was that the Universe can not create itself.

Oh really? the univers is infinite, the matter is finite.

There is a huge difference between the complexity of a snowflake and that of the human brain.

That doesn't mean that it's been around forever, it only means it took longer to develop. I will prove to you right now that evolution happened. Are you ready? Okay. I am taller than both my parents.

I didn't say just because. As I stated above, I believe that creation is enough to prove a creator exists.

That's pretty nutty logic - then where did this creator come from, who created him, who created his creator?

Using your own logic, I could just as well claim that god does not exist "just because", and still maintain the validity of your argument.

He doesn't exist because we have a reason for almost everything that happens. God was invented to explain the unexplainable.

How did the universe come into being if not by God.

The universe was once a supermassive black hole that exploded, the big bang. everything goes outwards. There was always atoms, the component of everything in existence.

Creation exists, thus a creator exists. Logically this makes sense to me. How can a painting exist without a painter?

The creator would need a creator, etc.

Um, the sun is slowly dying, stars are exploding.

A car becomes shittier and shittier, but from the parts of old cars comes new cars - in the same way, suns die and die, they explode, sometimes implode, their matter forms new stars.

I can't. This is what my religion teaches and what I choose to believe.

Exactly!

Finite means having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable. If the universe is expanding as you say, then it is finite.

No. Universe = infinite, matter in universe = finite.

If the sun and stars are running out of fuel. Then they can't have been going forever.

No, there were suns before, and before.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

I can prove that God exists. Look out the window. Do you see the world? If you see the world then you know that some higher power exists.

This is simply a watchmakers argument in the making.

I don't know what a watchmakers argumement is.
However, how can the world have created itself?

Now don't try and say that the world created itself because that makes no sense whatsoever.

Poisoning the well, a logical fallacy. In short, you're creating a preemptive ad hominem and not addressing the merits of the concepts.

I understood about half of that. And I will rephrase what I said and apologize. It doesn't make sense to me that the universe created itself.

A bottle of Pepsi cannot create itself, a rock cannot create itself and the universe cannot do it either.

So, if I may break this down to its syllogistic core, you're stating the following:

Premise: X is too complex to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
Premise: Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient being.
Premise: God is that sentient being.
Premise: Therefore, God exists.

Yes, I'm not saying the God of the Bible exists. I'm say a higher being exists with the ability to create things.
And my point was that the Universe can not create itself.

The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of creation merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is non-sequitur logic. You are describing objects as "complex" or "ordered", which implies that a deity has ordered them. However we know this to be patently false as there are examples of systems which are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes (snowflakes, diamonds, stalacites, etc.).

Again, I understood about half of that. But I think I understood enough.
There is a huge difference between the complexity of a snowflake and that of the human brain.

A brief interjection, because I want to reply to a whole bunch in one post: please, give the difference in complexity of a snowflake and a human brain, and why we should discount one over the other.

The watered down designed claim you are using in nothing but an argument from ignorance, since it unexplained and unsupported. You're making the huge assumption that natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore they both must be designed. However, different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light bulbs. You must therefore demonstrate that only a sentient being can cause orderly systems or the argument is invalid.

How can you believe that everything in the world was created by random chance? I mean this with all due respect and without meaning to offend. But to me it just sounds silly for someone to say it's illogical to believe in a higher being with the power to create order and then turn around and say it could all happen by chance.

See, this is where you get it all wrong. First, I don't suppose that the world was "created", and additionally, I do not believe that it happened by chance, but rather incidentally.

Second, you have little room to comment on the logic of others. Thus far, you have suppressed premises, poisoned wells, asserted the consequent, made an appeal to ignorance, and used non-sequitur.

Now you will probably want to say, well where did God come from, if the universe can't create itself then how can God? And I will reply, God IS. And that's it.

Suppressed premise. You have failed to state how you have rationally concluded that god exists. "Just because" is not a valid method of debate, or logic.

I didn't say just because. As I stated above, I believe that creation is enough to prove a creator exists.

Your premise was tantamount to "Just because". God "is" is hardly an acceptable way of rationally defining him.

Now you could also reply that the universe IS. But if you believe that, then you run into a few problems.

Oh, really?

I believe so. How did the universe come into being if not by God.

Molecular reactions?

Or is that too mundane for you?

God has always been. I don't see any reason why not. But then again I've never searched for a reason why God can't have existed forever

Do you mind proving how gods always been using logical measures, and defining each step along the way?

Creation exists, thus a creator exists. Logically this makes sense to me. How can a painting exist without a painter?

Again, you're assigning properties without giving a rationally defined reason as to why they are "created".

However, the Universe shows signs of deterioration. Therefore it cannot have always been.

False. The universe is showing signs of expansion, not deterioration.

Um, the sun is slowly dying, stars are exploding.

Stars have been exploding for millennia, and the sun is a relatively new sun. It won't be dying for billions and billions of years.

God is infinite.

Prove to me this.

I can't. This is what my religion teaches and what I choose to believe.

Wait. Stop the conversation.

You have just admitted that you cannot prove that god exists by rational means. This is all I am looking for. As far as I am concerned, you're done here.

[ilevot]

There is a huge difference between the complexity of a snowflake and that of the human brain.

That doesn't mean that it's been around forever, it only means it took longer to develop. I will prove to you right now that evolution happened. Are you ready? Okay. I am taller than both my parents.

mmmm, and this proves evolution how?

the one great question evolutionists can not answer, is "where did the original slime (or whatever everything was supposed to have come from) come from in the first place? if there was nothing, and then that "nothing" exploded, where did that "nothing that could explode" come from? unless, of course, the unthinkable happened, and someone who was already there made it? (not that I believe that anything exploded to create earth, it was God who created it all out of nothing, and just because you don't like it and don't want to believe that, doesn't make it any less true.)

[vtmarik]

There is a huge difference between the complexity of a snowflake and that of the human brain.

That doesn't mean that it's been around forever, it only means it took longer to develop. I will prove to you right now that evolution happened. Are you ready? Okay. I am taller than both my parents.

mmmm, and this proves evolution how?

the one great question evolutionists can not answer, is "where did the original slime (or whatever everything was supposed to have come from) come from in the first place? if there was nothing, and then that "nothing" exploded, where did that "nothing that could explode" come from? unless, of course, the unthinkable happened, and someone who was already there made it? (not that I believe that anything exploded to create earth, it was God who created it all out of nothing, and just because you don't like it and don't want to believe that, doesn't make it any less true.)

Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life, it is a theory used to explain special diversity and genetic drift through natural selection and genetic adaptation. It was never intended to be a theory of the origin of life, and your interpreting it as such shows that you have no idea what it really is do you?

If you want to talk about the big bang, the pan-spermia theory, or any other origin of life/cosmos idea, then talk about them. Don't misclassify evolution.

[benmor78]

I am extending a challenge to all theists (Christians, Theistic Buddhists, Ba'hai, Muslims, Jews, etc.):

Rationally explain why you believe that there is a deity. Using accepted logic (for a list of fallacious arguments, go to fallacyfiles.org), define each step along the way that provides you proof as to the existence of a deity. If you quote from a source (Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc.) as a method of supporting your arguments, give a rigorous explanation as to why the source is valid to quote from without using any tautologies. Be sure to quantify all concepts and axioms that may be vague, arbitrary, or otherwise appearing to be illogical.

If you can beat my logic with better, rational logic, I will concede that there is a god.

For a bonus, if you can present to me evidence that would prove your religious ideology to be the most rational, I will not only accept your religion as the more rational philosophy, but I will argue for it whenever these debates come up.

However, if you cannot overcome my challenge, you must explain why you still hold on to your beliefs, in face of overwhelming intellectual odds.

There have been a number of proofs put forward, including the argument from design, the teleological argument, et al. But, in th end, the question is, who cares? I believe in a creator. I don't have to prove to you that God exists, because 1) proof of a creator runs counter to theistic principles, and 2) you sound like one of those prostelyzing atheist dicks who is just looking to pick a fight.

Either way, belief in a diety doesn't preclude one from believing in evolution or cosmological theory, so I'm not sure why atheists have such a hardon about it.

[b.k. barunt]

"Rational thought". Is it more rational to believe that life came from nothing, or that it was created? Evolution not about the origin of life? Well let's nitpick on the words then - ever hear of a book called Origin of Species? I think the author came up with the idea of evolution.

[2dimes]

So you acknowledge a complete rejection of logic, reason, and general rationality is necessary to believe in a god?

I think this is accurate statement. It would be a reasonable discription of faith.

Especially regarding the God of the bible.

It's imposible to try and narrow him down to something I can understand. Though even if I deny it, I must do exactly that to have a concept of what he could or couldn't be.

If he exists in such a simple form as we are, he would be unable to do all that he is credited with in the writings about single events.

That is not to even mention the things that are refered to and said to be beyond comprehension by natural man.

So too for Jesus to be the bridge bettween God and man, he would have to defy those things.

Yet I must reduce them to a nearly infinatly more simple thing than they need to be if I wish to confine them to the levels of logic, reason and general rationality I am capable of. Which I of course do, it's my nature to want to know things.

So even if there is a person that knows the facts there would be too much they could never explain.

I believe the question you're asking with the thread cannot be answered with the level of thought and comunication humans are currently capable of.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

There is a huge difference between the complexity of a snowflake and that of the human brain.

That doesn't mean that it's been around forever, it only means it took longer to develop. I will prove to you right now that evolution happened. Are you ready? Okay. I am taller than both my parents.

mmmm, and this proves evolution how?

the one great question evolutionists can not answer, is "where did the original slime (or whatever everything was supposed to have come from) come from in the first place? if there was nothing, and then that "nothing" exploded, where did that "nothing that could explode" come from? unless, of course, the unthinkable happened, and someone who was already there made it? (not that I believe that anything exploded to create earth, it was God who created it all out of nothing, and just because you don't like it and don't want to believe that, doesn't make it any less true.)

I see you swallow the creationist garbage wholesale.

First, you're confusing and mixing the big bang theory, evolution, and abiogenesis. These three are not inherently linked.

Second, while I am not very sure of how abiogenesis functions, that doesn't mean that it automatically proves that there is a god.

Third, evolution doesn't postulate that something came from nothing. This is a strawman.

Fourth, the big bang wasn't an explosion, and it certainly did not create earth (that came much later). Rather, the big bang was a transition from one molecular state to another. It's transformation has led to its expansion, which will eventually stop due to reaching a point of equilibrium, or come back in on itself (the big crunch).

[ilevot]

There is a huge difference between the complexity of a snowflake and that of the human brain.

That doesn't mean that it's been around forever, it only means it took longer to develop. I will prove to you right now that evolution happened. Are you ready? Okay. I am taller than both my parents.

mmmm, and this proves evolution how?

the one great question evolutionists can not answer, is "where did the original slime (or whatever everything was supposed to have come from) come from in the first place? if there was nothing, and then that "nothing" exploded, where did that "nothing that could explode" come from? unless, of course, the unthinkable happened, and someone who was already there made it? (not that I believe that anything exploded to create earth, it was God who created it all out of nothing, and just because you don't like it and don't want to believe that, doesn't make it any less true.)

Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life, it is a theory used to explain special diversity and genetic drift through natural selection and genetic adaptation. It was never intended to be a theory of the origin of life, and your interpreting it as such shows that you have no idea what it really is do you?

actually, I probably do know alot more about it than you do. probably at least a year of my life has been used looking into such matters and hearing about them.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

"Rational thought". Is it more rational to believe that life came from nothing, or that it was created?

Already addressed.

[b.k. barunt]

Not answered very well.

[vtmarik]

actually, I probably do know alot more about it than you do. probably at least a year of my life has been used looking into such matters and hearing about them.

And I've written two papers about the debate and read several books on the subject by both creationists and atheists alike. What's your point?

I have no intention on getting into an intellectual dick measuring contest with you or anyone else.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

There is a huge difference between the complexity of a snowflake and that of the human brain.

That doesn't mean that it's been around forever, it only means it took longer to develop. I will prove to you right now that evolution happened. Are you ready? Okay. I am taller than both my parents.

mmmm, and this proves evolution how?

the one great question evolutionists can not answer, is "where did the original slime (or whatever everything was supposed to have come from) come from in the first place? if there was nothing, and then that "nothing" exploded, where did that "nothing that could explode" come from? unless, of course, the unthinkable happened, and someone who was already there made it? (not that I believe that anything exploded to create earth, it was God who created it all out of nothing, and just because you don't like it and don't want to believe that, doesn't make it any less true.)

Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life, it is a theory used to explain special diversity and genetic drift through natural selection and genetic adaptation. It was never intended to be a theory of the origin of life, and your interpreting it as such shows that you have no idea what it really is do you?

actually, I probably do know alot more about it than you do. probably at least a year of my life has been used looking into such matters and hearing about them.

I am willing to bet you don't know jack shit about evolution.

Yes, that is a challenge.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Not answered very well.

I don't find it intellectually stimulating to repeat arguments over and over.