Not sure anymore

[CogitoErgoGeek]

Walkwithyou

So, there's no evidence what so ever ... AT ALL ... that makes you think there is a God?

Ummm... Nope. Nothing of which I am currently aware.  

[CCubed]

I have a link you might be interested in. Logical arguments for the existence
of God.

Link  

[CogitoErgoGeek]

Ky-Kiske101

My advice to you would be the same as my advice to her...belief is not something that just happens, it is something YOU CHOOSE to you. YOU CHOOSE to believe that Christ is the Son of God, and That God Loves you. You CHOOSE to believe that God has your best interest as hear and that he loves you more than ANYONE loves you. These are things that you choose.

I whole-heartedly disagree. Given the evidence presented to me and the process of reasoning by which my mind thinks, I cannot control what I believe. Even if I tried to live as if I believed something else, I would just be putting on a show. In my mind, my beliefs would not change, and I would not be able to do anything about it. The only thing that can change my beliefs is the discovery of new evidence or a change in my process of reasoning. The latter is what happened to me as I began to doubt God recently, and I found this process to be entirely out of my control.

Clearly, I could choose to seek new evidences to change my beliefs. In fact, this is something I try to do regularly. However, my beliefs are still at the mercy of the evidences which I discover (or do not discover). And, perhaps you could say that I have the choice to change my process of reasoning, but I see no way that I could ever do such a thing voluntarily.  

[CogitoErgoGeek]

divineseraph

Here is my evidence- The discovery of metal. Simply that.

Think about it- It's a complicated thing. Normal fires heat to about 760 C. Copper, the first real metal, doesn't melt until over 1000 C. In fact, the only metal I have found which can melt in a normal fire is Tin, which was used primarily to combine with copper. Therefore, copper came before tin. Other than tin, metal requires an oven designed to heat higher than normal temperature for a long period of time. Ovens for cooking bricks heat to about 900 degrees. So basically, the only way one would smelt a metal would be to use an oven FOR smelting metal. And the only purpose one would have to own such an oven would be to smelt such metal.

but it is said that fallen angels told man how to make metal. (amongst other things) Seeing as I can't believe that some guy would happen to make a randomly purposeless oven, and heated it as hot as possible for no other reason than to cook rocks, and happened to find a rock which had metal in it, and from there happened to obtain the metal from said rock... I'm gonna go with divine intervention on this one.

Hmmm... Never heard that argument before. Yet, I am not convinced. You give suprisingly little credit to the power of human ingenuity. I think a little study of the history of technology might show you many examples of curiosity that have led to unexpected technological advancements.  

[CogitoErgoGeek]

CCubed

I have a link you might be interested in. Logical arguments for the existence
of God.

Link

Thanks for the link. These are classic arguments, though expressed in original terms. The reason I do not find these particularly convincing is that they all seem to follow a faulty process of reasoning which basically says: "I do not understand X, therefore God." Allow me to sum up the three arguments in that particular article:

The "Big Bang Redux" Proof
I do not understand how the Big Bang could have happened, therefore God.

The "Back to Our Origins" Proof
I do not understand where everything came from, therefore God.

The "Design" Proof
I do not understand how biological complexity could arise naturally, therefore God.

This might work, if each of these situations had only two possible answers: the current scientific theory or God. However, it is not clear that this is the case. There could be a great number of unknown explanations for things which we simply have not discovered. Even if one can raise reasonable doubt in a current scientific theory, this does not automatically lead us to the conclusion that it must have been God. It simply means that we need a new theory. Granted, God could be the answer, but where is the reason to believe in that particular answer? All I see in this article is a denial of other answers.

On a side note, in addition to this fundamental problem with arguments of that form, this particular article does a poor job of refuting scientific theories. It would help if the author sought better understanding of the theories in question, in order to avoid straw man arguments.  

[divineseraph]

CogitoErgoGeek

divineseraph

Here is my evidence- The discovery of metal. Simply that.

Think about it- It's a complicated thing. Normal fires heat to about 760 C. Copper, the first real metal, doesn't melt until over 1000 C. In fact, the only metal I have found which can melt in a normal fire is Tin, which was used primarily to combine with copper. Therefore, copper came before tin. Other than tin, metal requires an oven designed to heat higher than normal temperature for a long period of time. Ovens for cooking bricks heat to about 900 degrees. So basically, the only way one would smelt a metal would be to use an oven FOR smelting metal. And the only purpose one would have to own such an oven would be to smelt such metal.

but it is said that fallen angels told man how to make metal. (amongst other things) Seeing as I can't believe that some guy would happen to make a randomly purposeless oven, and heated it as hot as possible for no other reason than to cook rocks, and happened to find a rock which had metal in it, and from there happened to obtain the metal from said rock... I'm gonna go with divine intervention on this one.

Hmmm... Never heard that argument before. Yet, I am not convinced. You give suprisingly little credit to the power of human ingenuity. I think a little study of the history of technology might show you many examples of curiosity that have led to unexpected technological advancements.

Human enginuity? Back when metals were discovered, humans were struggling to survive. We didn't have time for experimentation, especially one so strange as cooking rocks. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but the chances seem so slim that unless I find out the name of the guy who did it and how he stumbled upon it, I'm not so sure.  

[CogitoErgoGeek]

divineseraph

Human enginuity? Back when metals were discovered, humans were struggling to survive. We didn't have time for experimentation, especially one so strange as cooking rocks. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but the chances seem so slim that unless I find out the name of the guy who did it and how he stumbled upon it, I'm not so sure.

No matter what you think about the chances, it sure seems that an extraordinary case of human ingenuity is a more reasonable conclusion than that of supernatural revelation of metal to primitive humans. We see examples of human ingenuity all throughout history. We do not see obvious examples of supernatural revelation of technology.  

[CCubed]

CogitoErgoGeek

CCubed

I have a link you might be interested in. Logical arguments for the existence
of God.

Link

Thanks for the link. These are classic arguments, though expressed in original terms. The reason I do not find these particularly convincing is that they all seem to follow a faulty process of reasoning which basically says: "I do not understand X, therefore God." Allow me to sum up the three arguments in that particular article:

The "Big Bang Redux" Proof
I do not understand how the Big Bang could have happened, therefore God.

The "Back to Our Origins" Proof
I do not understand where everything came from, therefore God.

The "Design" Proof
I do not understand how biological complexity could arise naturally, therefore God.

This might work, if each of these situations had only two possible answers: the current scientific theory or God. However, it is not clear that this is the case. There could be a great number of unknown explanations for things which we simply have not discovered. Even if one can raise reasonable doubt in a current scientific theory, this does not automatically lead us to the conclusion that it must have been God. It simply means that we need a new theory. Granted, God could be the answer, but where is the reason to believe in that particular answer? All I see in this article is a denial of other answers.

On a side note, in addition to this fundamental problem with arguments of that form, this particular article does a poor job of refuting scientific theories. It would help if the author sought better understanding of the theories in question, in order to avoid straw man arguments.

You misunderstand.

The Big Bang Redux Proof, simply states that what you have to realize, is that no two atoms, no matter how fast they collide, create a large enough force to create a continuous chain reaction. For example, the Atom bomb worked on the process of causing a chain reaction, but it took a lead block being forced into a block of atoms at a high speed to start the chain reaction. An atom bomb, only destroys whole cities, but the force need to start a galaxy wide chain reaction would be huge and more then enough to destroy Earth.

The Back to our Origins Proof, simply says, that there is nowhere left to go once you reach that point. The point is, it would've had to come from somewhere seeing as how nothing lives forever. It's basic science. We die, bugs die, not even atoms stay the same forever. All it points out is that because of that, evolution had to start with something that could've been forever, because as we know from more advanced science, only life can beget life. Thus, something would've had to existed then and nothing in our realm could have.

The Design Proof, simply states that everything is made from something more advanced. God could've made the world with evolution, but it would've required God because it returns to the Back to our Origins proof where only life can beget life. It is not the author's however, as he clearly states.  

[CogitoErgoGeek]

CCubed

You misunderstand.

The Big Bang Redux Proof, simply states that what you have to realize, is that no two atoms, no matter how fast they collide, create a large enough force to create a continuous chain reaction. For example, the Atom bomb worked on the process of causing a chain reaction, but it took a lead block being forced into a block of atoms at a high speed to start the chain reaction. An atom bomb, only destroys whole cities, but the force need to start a galaxy wide chain reaction would be huge and more then enough to destroy Earth.

The Back to our Origins Proof, simply says, that there is nowhere left to go once you reach that point. The point is, it would've had to come from somewhere seeing as how nothing lives forever. It's basic science. We die, bugs die, not even atoms stay the same forever. All it points out is that because of that, evolution had to start with something that could've been forever, because as we know from more advanced science, only life can beget life. Thus, something would've had to existed then and nothing in our realm could have.

The Design Proof, simply states that everything is made from something more advanced. God could've made the world with evolution, but it would've required God because it returns to the Back to our Origins proof where only life can beget life. It is not the author's however, as he clearly states.

Well, I do not intend to get into a drawn-out argument about specific proofs in this particular thread, so I will let you have the last word on the matter. If you want to debate it in more detail, I would be happy to do it in M&R.  

[CCubed]

sorry, M&R?  

[Mjolnir The Hammer]

'Morality' & 'Religion'. wink  

[CogitoErgoGeek]

CCubed

sorry, M&R?

Like maple said, it is the section of Extended Discussion which deals with Morality and Religion. I hang around there the most on Gaia. That is a more appropriate place for in-depth debates. I need to be careful not to turn this thread into another M&R thread.  

[jms_13_13]

my proof? you said you looked @ the world and saw nothing. you should have seen.. the world! no big bang, if you were Ever a Christian, you should know that. and, no offense, the Bible says you are adopted. to the romans, that was a big deal. once somone adopted you, you COULD NEVER BE DISOWNED OR GOTTEN RID OF! so if you were a REAL Christian, you can never un'become one of us. see if your school has a little group of Christians, get in w/them, they can help alot w/any day-to-day encouragement needs.