Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Prove God Exists.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
617 replies to this topic

#21 Buller

Buller

    IO of the OWF

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 377 posts
  • Nation Name:Children of the Corn
  • Alliance Name:STA
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Heinocracy
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Frostbite

Posted 24 November 2007 - 08:51 AM

Disprove his existence.

disprove my disprove of his existence

#22 Artemis

Artemis

    Moon Hippie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,038 posts
  • Nation Name:Delos
  • Alliance Name:Children of Luna

Posted 24 November 2007 - 08:54 AM

We're operating under the assumption that we know everything. We don't KNOW for a fact the universe was created, we don't know for a fact that space is really what we think it is. We really don't know a damned thing FOR SURE, so trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is futile. We don't have the knowledge to do so.


I completely agree. Except that with the knowledge we do have, there is absolutely no evidence for a god. So why do people believe in one? It's ridiculous.

#23 Toichus Maximus

Toichus Maximus

    Want to see a magic trick? Take this ordinary French fry and...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • Nation Name:Toichmenistan
  • Alliance Name:Alpha Omega

Posted 24 November 2007 - 09:44 AM

In the beginning, there was nothing... which exploded.

#24 High King Nick

High King Nick

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 692 posts
  • Nation Name:Illyrium
  • Alliance Name:The Lost World

Posted 24 November 2007 - 09:46 AM

Lift your hand up right now. Look at it. Every human body is so immensely complex that, personally, I believe that there is no way that chance could have created it. And like others have said, there can be no way to prove God exists, and that's where faith comes in.

#25 Vaal Satori

Vaal Satori

    A drop of rain, in search of the ocean

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,083 posts
  • Nation Name:Arkanodia
  • Alliance Name:TPMA

Posted 24 November 2007 - 09:59 AM

Almost every time I've visited the Boiler Room I've seen some sort of debate about the existence or nonexistence of God. Out of all the threads I've read not one person could prove, using logic and reason, that God exists. This is why I've made this thread. I want someone to prove, or at least give a good argument for, the existence of God using logic. I ask that everyone remain civil in this thread.


Begin.


I guess you have never read philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Parmenides or Melissos, who used logic to surmise that being does not come from non-being. The following is an explanation of Aristotle's argument for the Unmoved Mover:

Aristotle resolves the problem of how something can become something else inherited from his predecessors by differentiating between the potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (entelecheia) inhering in a substratum or matter. He defines motion (kinêsis) as "the fulfillment of what exists potentially, insofar as it exists potentially" (Physics 3.1; 201a 10-12). A thing is in a state of actuality, meaning that it is what it is, but it also is potentially something else. Its potentiality is, as it were, an attribute of thing as actual. Aristotle explains further, "It is the fulfilment of what is potential when it is already fully real and operates not as itself but as movable, that is motion. What I mean by 'as' is this: Bronze is potentially a statue. But it is not the fulfilment of bronze as bronze which is motion. For 'to be bronze' and 'to be a certain potentiality' are not the same" (Physics 3.1; 201a). The actuality of a thing as movable, that is to say, its potentiality as moved, is motion. Potentiality inheres in a thing and it is the thing as this potentiality in the process of being actualized that can be said to be in motion. For example, a green tomato has the potentiality to be a red tomato. The actualization of its potentiality to be red is motion, in particular, alteration from being green to being red. Aristotle explains further,

We can define motion as the fulfilment of the movable as movable, the cause of the attribute being contact with what can move so that the mover is also acted on. The mover or agent will always be the vehicle of a form, either a 'this' or 'such', which, when it acts, will be the source and cause of the change, e.g. the full-formed man begets man from what is potentially man. (Physics 3.2; 202a)

A thing as movable is moved by contact with an efficient cause, or a mover. The mover as moved becomes the means by which a form comes to inhere in another moving and then moved thing. It is the actualization of the thing as movable through its contact with a moved efficient cause that is motion. Aristotle would agree with Parmenides and Melissos that being does not come from non-being in an unqualified sense. But he asserts that being comes from non-being in a qualified sense as the actualization of a potentiality; potentiality is qualified non-being. In this way one can say that something both comes and does not come from something else: it comes from the potentiality inherent in something but does not come from what is actually existing.

From his considerations of the nature of motion in Physics, in Book 8, Aristotle concludes that there must be a logically first unmoved mover in order to explain all other motion. In Physics 8.1, he argues that motion is eternal. Motion cannot begin without the prior existence of something to impart motion in another thing, so that there will always be something in motion, since something at rest cannot cause motion in another thing. In addition, if motion were not eternal, then time would not have always existed, since time is the measure of motion; but, according to Aristotle, no one would be willing to say that time has not always been in existence. Nor can motion cease, since to do so something must cause it to cease, but then the thing that caused motion to cease would require something to cause its cessation and the process would continue ad infinitum. Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" (252b 6-8). Aristotle also objects to the idea that motion may have begun self-caused; he points out that, in those things in which motion is said to be "self-caused," in fact, there is a part of the thing that is already in motion and imparts motion to the whole. Self-caused means that motion is not imparted from without but from some part of the whole that is already in motion. In such cases, the motion of the part that moves the other parts of a things requires a mover.

Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) According to Aristotle, all movable things are only potentially in motion, and require something else to act upon them in order to be set in motion: "So it is clear that in all these cases the thing does not move itself, but it contains within itself the source of motion—not of moving something or of causing motion, but of suffering it." (Physics 8.4; 255b 29-31). Thus, if there were no unmoved mover, there could be no motion, because a moved mover requires a cause of its own motion and no infinite regress is possible. In Physics 8.6, Aristotle argues that, since motion is both eternal and necessary, the first mover must be equally eternal and necessary. Because those things involved in the eternal and continuous process of motion are not eternal and necessary, since they come into being and perish, there must be one or many eternal and necessary thing or things outside the process of motion that imparts or impart motion to the things in motion. This is the only way that there could be any motion, for non-eternal and contingent movers cannot explain all motion, because their own coming into existence needs a cause. He explains, "There is something that comprehends them all, and that as something apart from each one of them, and this it is that is the cause of the fact that some things are and others are not and of the continuous process of change" (Physics 259a 3-5). It is not possible to explain eternal motion by postulating a plurality of unmoved movers capable of imparting motion but that do not exist eternally, for "There must clearly be something that causes things that move themselves at one time to be and at another time not to be" (Physics 258b 21). Aristotle determines that there is only one unmoved mover, not only because many unmoved movers are unnecessary, but because only one mover could produce a continuous motion, in the sense of being an interconnected system of causes and effects. Moreover, since it is continuous, motion is one; one effect requires a single cause, so that the unmoved mover must also be one. He concludes that an unmoved mover causing eternal motion must likewise be eternal (Physics 260a 1-2).

Aristotle identifies locomotion as the primary source of motion, because the other two types of motion—increase and decrease and alteration—presupposes locomotion (He offers several arguments in support of this position) (Physics 8.7; 260a 20 - 261a 28). There are two types of locomotion: continuous and successive. The former is circular motion, whereas the latter is all other types of locomotion. (In fact, only locomotion can be continuous because increase and decrease and alteration represent change from one contrary to the contrary, which is not continuous, but has a beginning and an end. The contraries, in other words, are states of rest.) Continuous motion is said to be primary, as opposed to the other types of motion—rectilinear or a composite of rectilinear and circular motion—because, "It is more simple and complete" (Physics 8.9; 265a 17). There can be no infinite rectilinear motion because there cannot be an inifinite line; thus continuous or complete rectilinaer motion cannot be one motion but must be a composite motion because what is moving along a finite line must stop and reverse its course if it is to be a continuous motion. Motion along finite line that does not reverse itself is discontinuous or incomplete motion, since its motion ceases. Only circular motion can be both a continuous or complete and simple motion. Aristotle adds that only circular motion can be eternal, since other types of motion have a starting-point, a middle-point and finishing-point of its motion, whereas circular motion is unending; what admits of being eternal is prior to that which does not and so is primary motion. He then argues that the first mover first imparts continuous circular locomotion to the heavenly spheres, which then transmit motion to other things. Earlier, at the conclusion of Physics 8.6, Aristotle affirms that the hypothesis of an unmoved mover explains why the motion of the outermost heavenly sphere is simple and one: "But the unmoved mover, as has been said, since it remains permanently simple and unvarying and in the same state, will cause motion that is one and simple" (Physics 8.6; 260a). The unmoved mover, according to Aristotle, is infinite, since it causes infinite motion. It follows that it is also without magnitude, since an infinite force cannot reside in a finite magnitude (and there can be no infinite magnitudes); having no magnitude means that the first mover is indivisible, having no parts (Physics 8.10; 267b 18-26). In fact, it exists at the circumference of the cosmos where it imparts motion to the outermost sphere, that of the fixed stars. The first mover cannot exist at the center of the outer sphere, the other possible option for its placement because center and circumference are the two principles of a sphere. This last point is proven by the fact that the things nearest to the movent have the quickest motion and the outermost sphere (of the fixed stars) rotates most quickly of all the spheres (Physics 8.10; 267b 5-9).


For the part where the unmoved mover is identified as God, read Aristotle's "Metaphysics" Ch 12. At any rate there is your logical argument for the existence of God.

#26 Emperor Mccole

Emperor Mccole

    whadya want, brat?

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,495 posts
  • Nation Name:the protectorate
  • Alliance Name:Nueva Vida

Posted 24 November 2007 - 10:31 AM

1) If god exists he will let me watch you be tortured for eternity.
2) I rather like that idea.
3) Therefore God exists.

#27 Generalissimo

Generalissimo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,083 posts
  • Nation Name:Procinctia

Posted 24 November 2007 - 11:26 AM

I want someone to prove, or at least give a good argument for, the existence of God using logic.


Humanity still knows so little about reality around us, while our current facility for observation is still so limited…
Many relatively mundane phenomenons, like ball lightning, lack definitive explanation.
If the world’s greatest minds scientific minds cannot provide an adequate to what is possibly an electric occurrence, how am I supposed to provide adequate evidence of god?

#28 Willaim Kreiger

Willaim Kreiger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Nation Name:Germanic Empire

Posted 24 November 2007 - 11:29 AM

I don't see any reason to prove to you that he exists, it is something decided within every person on their own accord. It is a personal decision for everyone. Too bad people's decisions tend to offend others. I get along quite fine with my friends who are athiests, my cousins who are Muslims, and my family who is Christian. I don't see why others can't.

And once again.
Prove to me that he doesn't exist.

#29 Eagare the Alenthin

Eagare the Alenthin

    You want to know what I'm laughing about?

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,056 posts
  • Nation Name:Eschenil
  • Alliance Name:Cult of Richard

Posted 24 November 2007 - 12:49 PM

You know what? This is what it should be like:

If you're religious, cool, be faithful and practice.
If you're atheist, cool, don't be faithful and don't practice.
Keep it out of your social life.

Seriously, who actually spouts Biblical/atheist verbatim in everyday conversation?

#30 Kenadian

Kenadian

    MAGNIFY

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51,685 posts
  • Nation Name:Kenadia

Posted 24 November 2007 - 12:51 PM

You know what? This is what it should be like:

If you're religious, cool, be faithful and practice.
If you're atheist, cool, don't be faithful and don't practice.
Keep it out of your social life.

Seriously, who actually spouts Biblical/atheist verbatim in everyday conversation?


This is exactly my feelings on the matter, private religion/faith FTW.

#31 Eagare the Alenthin

Eagare the Alenthin

    You want to know what I'm laughing about?

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,056 posts
  • Nation Name:Eschenil
  • Alliance Name:Cult of Richard

Posted 24 November 2007 - 12:54 PM

Hooray! Both atheists and theists alike should warm up to the idea of social harmony.


...right?

#32 King Gerry

King Gerry

    NPO Troll Squad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 854 posts
  • Nation Name:Commiepinkoland
  • Alliance Name:The Evil NPO

Posted 24 November 2007 - 12:57 PM

I agree with Kevin..... prove he doesn't exist.

#33 Kenadian

Kenadian

    MAGNIFY

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51,685 posts
  • Nation Name:Kenadia

Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:00 PM

Hooray! Both atheists and theists alike should warm up to the idea of social harmony.


...right?


Pretty much yea. To put it bluntly, I put people like Richard Dawkins in the same boat as asses like Pat Robertson.

#34 Joe Kremlin

Joe Kremlin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Nation Name:Wafflachia
  • Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox

Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:04 PM

I think that God will be proven or disproven in this thread, leading to major global changes.

You can never convince someone that they have faith in something that doesn't exist, and you can't make someone else have faith. You can get quotes from philosophers to back up either side. I don't think he exists.

posting trollbait: Posted Image

#35 Buller

Buller

    IO of the OWF

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 377 posts
  • Nation Name:Children of the Corn
  • Alliance Name:STA
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Heinocracy
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Frostbite

Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:12 PM

In the beginning, there was nothing... which exploded.

In the beginning there was a guy.

out of !@#$@#$ nowhere

#36 SpacingOutMan

SpacingOutMan

    No

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,292 posts
  • Nation Name:Mechodamia
  • Alliance Name:Dark Templar

Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:12 PM

I think that God will be proven or disproven in this thread, leading to major global changes.


I'd like to see everyone try. You can't disprove an infallible idea or figure.

You can never convince someone that they have faith in something that doesn't exist, and you can't make someone else have faith. You can get quotes from philosophers to back up either side. I don't think he exists.


I always thought fear and power made people believe in stuff that they don't really believe in. ;)

http://www.doesgodexist.org/

Just read through that if you may. I am not saying I agree with all of it, nor am I saying I disagree with any of it. I just found it to be an interesting read.

#37 Magnus Nordir

Magnus Nordir

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts
  • Nation Name:Ny Sverige
  • Alliance Name:Norden Verein

Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:13 PM

I think that God will be proven or disproven in this thread, leading to major global changes.

You can never convince someone that they have faith in something that doesn't exist, and you can't make someone else have faith. You can get quotes from philosophers to back up either side. I don't think he exists.

posting trollbait: Posted Image


I'd agree, although I'd view Einstein's conclusions on 'God' to be quite reasonable, and not rooted in blind faith.

#38 Jacob the Malignant

Jacob the Malignant

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,048 posts
  • Nation Name:Paradise City
  • Alliance Name:The International

Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:17 PM

How come people who don't believe in God, think that everybody who does is some totally scientifically, ignorant redneck?

Edited by Kaiser Jacob II, 24 November 2007 - 01:20 PM.


#39 heggo

heggo

    Imperator Emeritus of the NSO

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Nation Name:Heggomonomy
  • Alliance Name:New Sith Order

Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:17 PM

Metaphysics!
Boom, snap, ching!
By pointing out that religion is a question of metaphysics and of metaphysics only, I have proven that this entire line of discussion is purposeless and was destined to failure before it even began.

#40 Sharigan

Sharigan

    Informer of DOT

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Nation Name:Sharigan
  • Alliance Name:Dawn of Time

Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:19 PM

Here i will prove god exist. Can you see the brain exist just by looking at it..nope but we know that its there inside of you right that keeps u alive same way with god you cant see but its there all around us in a form of humans so we can work together to achive sucess and harmony among us.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users