MegaRevolution1 : That actually isn't my route at all. =)

The most common proof for God is as you described: we have to be creations so there is a creator. I don't like it specifically because its easy to misinterpret, and that's exactly what you did.

To make that proof work, you have to assume a soul (or also prove that). Also, the contradiction of ad infinitum and is messed up when you include time. The proof is NOT: my parents made me, they have parents that made them, etc, ergo God. Instead, to make it work, you have to say, "my parents made my body, but not my soul. My soul was made by something else. Since it is not physical, it is outside of time. There cannot be a series of infinite regression, ergo there must be an uncreated creator, ergo God."

I don't like that one. Too complicated. Too much you have to explain first before making the proof. Most people don't even realize how they're messing it up. Blah.

The one I was speaking of is called "contingency". Technically, Thomas Aquinas is the first to write this one (third way). Here's the basic order:

1. Stuff exists.
2. Ergo God.

I promise you it really is that simple. I'm going to draw it out so you understand what I mean. When the big bang happened, there was X amount of matter. This proof requires you understand that X is arbitrary. There could have been twice as much as X or half as much as X. Nevertheless, in our universe, there is X. What this means is that matter has nothing that demands its own existence. The carbon in the computer you type on could have just not been there in the explosion. There is nothing that requires it to be here. However, it is here (obviously). So lets say that X=0. No matter. No nothing. There was nothing to go bang in the first place. That's also entirely possible.

So, the question that we're really answering is "why is there something rather than nothing?". Existence either is or isn't. There can be nothing, or there can be something. Since we have something, there is existence. However, existence is given to matter/the universe by something else (known because of the arbitrariness/"existence is not matter"). Since existence is, that is actually our primary principle. God is Existence, or more commonly called Being. If stuff exists, it's because it comes from Existence.

I hate this debate so much...

Religions don't cause wars. No religions. Ever. People cause wars. People use religions as a tool to engage war, but this does not make religions innately bad. Technology itself is not good or bad, it just makes accomplishing goals easier. If your goal is efficient clean energy, nuclear power, while potentially disastrous, are great at providing lots of clean power. That's good, right? Using the same technology, you can wipe a city off a map, killing all inhabitants: man, woman, and child, innocent or guilty. This is bad, yes?

So what does religion do? Religion has the potential to say, "killing the innocent is wrong". Science cannot do that. Science looks at empirical data, but religion looks at morality. That is the good of religion. The bad of religion says, "we're innocent, those people are not. Go ahead and kill them". This is what people have a problem with.

If we do away with religion, we lose the ability to say "this is right; that is wrong". We can have laws against certain things, but what is our basis for making the laws in the first place? Just popular opinion? Or just those people that have power decide? We will always operate on fundamental religious principles, regardless of our claim to be religious or not.

Lets pretend I have no siblings, hate my abundantly wealthy parents, and morality is just my personal opinion. If I can find a way to kill my parents and not get caught, what reason for me is there not to kill my parents? I have just gained all their wealth for myself. Now it won't be spent on them, but on me. I have more now. Better for me. What's wrong with that scenario when there are no morals? Nothing. At all. If you say "you have to respect your parents, they raised you", you are using one of those fundamental religious principles.

This is why religious is necessary. What we need more of is better people in power. Powerful people are the ones that do evil. Everyone speaks of Hitler and Stalin and the like because they were the ones with the most power to do good or evil. Think of what the world would be like if Hitler had never invaded Austria, Poland, or any where, but instead focused on improving Germany's economy through other means. On the flip side, what if President Wilson sided with Hitler? If people would operate more on coherent fundamental religious principles, there would be less problems as a whole everywhere with everyone.

"No human could ever know the truth if there is and there no evidence that there is one"

You are claiming that no one could know AND there is no evidence. You're claiming that even if there were evidence, we still couldn't know. That's ridiculous! We believe that water is possible exists because there are rivers and oceans and lakes and whatnot. A good claim is that there is no evidence, therefore you don't think god exists. This is what EvilAlu says after you.

I would claim there is ample amount of evidence, evidence even more obvious than oceans of water. I'm not talking about "my parents said so" or even "Jesus came to the world" (although I believe that). Proof for the existence of God most evidently comes from the fact that you exist. I'm not even talking phenomonologically (not: you exist as you, if things were different it wouldn't be you), but instead metaphysically (fundamental causes).

Econ. Left/Right     1.62
Social Auth/Lib     -.015

I'm a conservative Christian, but I'm not a blind fool. I understand the different functions of government and churches, I don't think government should play mommy and daddy either. I willingly choose to do what is desired of me by my God, but I'm not going to push it to extremes that are not even required. Some people just believe what they're told and never actually examine their surroundings for themselves...

Wait... Tangible proof... for something that is inherently intangible??? That sounds like a color blind person not believing in red because it doesn't work in they're eyes. I can give you an argument that uses the existence of tangible things, but the argument is more centered toward the existence, not the things (and "existence", technically, is not tangible).

I go to a private Catholic college, and no one seems to mind the name Francis where I'm at. The only sort of disdain I can think of is from the uber-conservatives, and even then its small. It has become Catholic tradition to name yourself after a previous pope. This guy didn't. He chose a new name. To those conservatives, he's breaking with tradition, and therefore a trouble maker.

Again, these are not the Catholics nor the fathers at my university. These are only the weirdies.

Hey, new here. I go by Tex or Tx. I have been playing Fire Emblem for a little bit and decided I'd be involved in the community.

@Ender



Would you mind discussing why you believe there is no God? If it is just what you believe is more probable, state what are your reasons for saying that its more probable. In our discussion, I promise to never ever use a single bible quote, church father reference, or convince you why you subconsciously want Jesus in your life but a demon is making you confused.

 I'll be upfront though. Am I trying to change your beliefs? Yep. I think you're wrong, just like you think I'm wrong. I am hoping to teach you there is a coherent reason for the belief in a God.

There are multiple reasons I believe in the existence of a God, and none of them revolve around "a feeling" or "I just know", nor even "I have had a super-duper awesome spiritual experience". They all revolve around logic.

And just to note, the existence of God has is not one of those "You can neither prove nor disprove it" situations. That's bologna. God's existence is easily proven. However, whether God likes you, interacts with the world, and many qualities of the individual are unknown. Those cannot be proven. I thing there are strong hints, but not enough to say "proven".

Edit: I am really bad at spelling.