Guys, I was just wandering around and stumbled across this topic. I quickly noticed things like this:
What evidence is there for god? None. What evidence is there against god. Evolution.
Which is quite terrible. Please triple-check your arguments before posting them. Evolution only disproves a God that created the Earth with people, animals and plants in 6 days. However, you did not specify that, hence anyone can just sweep your argument off the table without putting almost any effort into it. These kind of things make a difference between a good debate and a pile of useless posts.
God can not be proven scientifically, this includes logical arguments. Though some time ago, I posted an argument (in another thread) that goes like this: if god created the universe, he must've interacted with it in some way, hence our laws of logic and science must apply to him. This, however, is wrong, because:
1. our laws may be wrong/incomplete
2. if he has the prower to create universes, the assumption that he can exist outside of them is not a very far-fetched one, hence our laws, even if correct, still cannot explain him.
Still, I will post a philosophical argument. Though I haven't read all this thread, I'm pretty sure it hasn't been mentioned: If you are to argue for an existance of some sort of power/being/energy that is beyond our comprehension, you must go to the root of all things - the creation of the universe.
First attempt:
How come all the physical constants and laws are the way they are? With there being an infinite number of possible constant/law choices, we got the one that actually allows life. From a philosophical perspective, the multi-verse argument can be dismissed, as it creates more questions than it gives answers. Though I forgot how it's called, there is an argument of whether we make maths up or not, which, if proven to be true (that we do make it up), casts doubt on the well-chosen constants of the universe, hence this whole argument. Also, claiming that life would not exist had our constants/laws be different can never be verified - maybe it would sill be possible for other forms of life to exist, say, on the sub-atomic level. No, this argument is too unstabile; we need something simpler...
Second attempt:
How about the
cause of the big bang. The 'scientific' point of view is that certain conditions were met that caused the infinitely small point expand, etc etc. If there were 'condtions', there must've been some rules (existence of conditions => existence of rules). Who created those rules? Don't hurry to say 'they just were there' - saying 'it just is/was' defeats the purpose of dispoving god, as you violate your own ideas of there being a scientifically-explainable cause to everything. Try to dodge the answer by saying 'there was another, higher, set of rules that created our universe', and in comes the rule/universe looping, which, as I stated before, only creates more questions. God also falls into this category - it creates lots of questions, many of which are similar to the ones we set out to answer: who created our rules, are they the only rules suitable for life, etc. So what now? I don't know. If God is a set of rules (even if we cannot comprehend them), it's all boring anyway.
I personally think one should not be worried about it. There is no conclusive proof, and probably never will be. Just assume nothing. Assuming that you do not know for sure is the safest and most truthful assumption in this case.
Not the best argument, but hey, I'm improving! I should educate myself a bit more about these issues.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 16 2009, 1:25 pm by JaFF.
None.