DemonHunter wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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.
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.
Now you could also reply that the universe IS. But if you believe that, then you run into a few problems.
Oh, really?
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?
However, the Universe shows signs of deterioration. Therefore it cannot have always been.
False. The universe is showing signs of
expansion, not deterioration.
God is infinite.
Prove to me this.
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.
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.
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
