Is God Real?

[Quattro]

I stated a very simple request, a request that you have not provided to me yet.

had you taken time out of your day to read through my entire introductory post you would realize that my argument is one of Socratic Dialogue. If you truly knew anything about philosophy then you would know a Socratic dialogue is a type of speech where I and the interlocutor, in this case you, post questions to one another until we reach an enlightened conclusion. But since you want to engage in sophistry as apposed to actually discussing about the subject I would just assume that you don't truly believe that all arguments for God are logically flawed.

Assuming you would like to continue this line of questioning in order to either prove or disprove your hypothesis I would suggest answering my question:

Who created you, or in layman's terms who gave birth to you?

 

[HUNNID]

OK this is turning into some what of a fight lets just chill out I didn't want it to/intend for it to turn into this. Just PM each other if this is going to go down please!

 

[Greed]

OK this is turning into some what of a fight lets just chill out I didn't want it to/intend for it to turn into this. Just PM each other if this is going to go down please!

I haven't seen any fighting, just good debating.

 

[HUNNID]

I haven't seen any fighting, just good debating.

very true but I have a feeling it will turn into some what of a fight.

 

[Quattro]

I haven't seen any fighting, just good debating.

Is there a Like button for your post? You seem like a great man. Someone I would liken to Niccolo Machiavelli or perhaps the Great Lorenzo himself!

 

[Cann!bal]

had you taken time out of your day to read through my entire introductory post you would realize that my argument is one of Socratic Dialogue. If you truly knew anything about philosophy then you would know a Socratic dialogue is a type of speech where I and the interlocutor, in this case you, post questions to one another until we reach an enlightened conclusion. But since you want to engage in sophistry as apposed to actually discussing about the subject I would just assume that you don't truly believe that all arguments for God are logically flawed.

Assuming you would like to continue this line of questioning in order to either prove or disprove your hypothesis I would suggest answering my question:

Who created you, or in layman's terms who gave birth to you?

Oops, didn't read it thoroughly enough, my apologies. I'm aware what a Socratic dialogue is. You should have restated this earlier. However, it was used and created by the Greeks to discuss primitive philosophy, not necessarily a stellar argument form to use nowadays.

No one created me, unless you're referring to my mother.

 

[Critical]

Holy shit I think you just explained exactly what I thought about this stuff oh my god.

 

[Quattro]

Oops, didn't read it thoroughly enough, my apologies. I'm aware what a Socratic dialogue is. You should have restated this earlier. However, it was used and created by the Greeks to discuss primitive philosophy, not necessarily a stellar argument form to use nowadays.

No one created me, unless you're referring to my mother.

Of course someone created you. And the obvious answer would be your mother. Everything in the world has a creator. For to exist in the world you must first be created. Can we both not agree on that? It would be quiet naive to say otherwise.

Now, for my second question Who created your mother? (Since your mother and your father created you).

 

[Establish]

I agree with Fevers first post. Religion is mostly based on faith.

 

[Cann!bal]

Of course someone created you. And the obvious answer would be your mother. Everything in the world has a creator. For to exist in the world you must first be created. Can we both not agree on that? It would be quiet naive to say otherwise.

Now, for my second question Who created your mother? (Since your mother and your father created you).

Essentially yes.

My grandmother created my mother. Can you stop asking such blatant questions and get to the point please?

---

I agree with Fevers first post. Religion is mostly based on faith.

Here's something I said the other day that addresses what you said.

You were born into a Catholic family, so you're Christian.

And if you were born into a Islamic fundamentalist family, you would be deeply religious and believe in Allah.

And if you were born in ancient Greece, you would believe in mythological Greek gods.

And if you were born into a Jewish family, you would believe in Yahweh.

And if you were born in Buddhist family, you would be Buddhist.

And if you were born into a family of one of our hominid ancestors, such as the Australopithecus, you wouldn't believe in a god.

Is the pattern not blatant enough? It's simply a matter of the time period and location you were born into. It's not a matter of evidence or faith.

 

[Quattro]

Essentially yes.

My grandmother created my mother. Can you stop asking such blatant questions and get to the point please?

I did say to be patient in my introductory paragraph. Please stop being so rude, the key to a sound argument is a slow build up this way we are not lost on the way to the solution!

Now, since we both agree that everything is created in order to exist following the line of reasoning we have set out, your mother created you her mother created her and so on, we will eventually get to who created the first ever human, for arguments sake lets say humans were created by monkeys and monkeys were created by fish etc... Since it would be illogical to attempt to disprove the theory of evolution.

Let us go down the seemingly infinite chain until we reach the first ever creator. When we reach this first ever creator it is important to recognize some premises:

1) Everything is created
1) A) The first ever thing to 'create' something must have by definition simply existed without being created.
2) God by definition is the primary creator and simply existed without being created.
=> Is god Omniscient or Omnipotent not necessarily and it would be naive to attempt to prove that, but a God must exist for there had to be something in this universe that created without being created.


Let me know if you got lost. I would have went a bit slower but you seemed angry!

 

[Cann!bal]

I did say to be patient in my introductory paragraph. Please stop being so rude, the key to a sound argument is a slow build up this way we are not lost on the way to the solution!

Now, since we both agree that everything is created in order to exist following the line of reasoning we have set out, your mother created you her mother created her and so on, we will eventually get to who created the first ever human, for arguments sake lets say humans were created by monkeys and monkeys were created by fish etc... Since it would be illogical to attempt to disprove the theory of evolution.

Let us go down the seemingly infinite chain until we reach the first ever creator. When we reach this first ever creator it is important to recognize some premises:

1) Everything is created
1) A) The first ever thing to 'create' something must have by definition simply existed without being created.
2) God by definition is the primary creator and simply existed without being created.
=> Is god Omniscient or Omnipotent not necessarily and it would be naive to attempt to prove that, but a God must exist for there had to be something in this universe that created without being created.


Let me know if you got lost. I would have went a bit slower but you seemed angry!

Rude? I said please. If that isn't polite, then I don't know what is. The questions you were asking me were blatant and pointless to answer -- you could have simply elaborated when I requested an argument. Plus, this isn't a Socratic dialogue for I'm not asking any questions back, because I'm not suppose to.

Firstly, your scientific understanding of evolution is awful. Secondly, you're committing the straw man fallacy by misrepresenting evolution.

The god hypothesis answers nothing, it only arises the question of who created god? If we decide that God always existed, we can save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed. If we decide knowing whether God is real is an unanswerable question, we can save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question.

Defining something in certain way does not make it the truth.

Omnipotence is a contradiction by itself.

 

[Quattro]

Rude? I said please. If that isn't polite, then I don't know what is. The questions you were asking me were blatant and pointless to answer -- you could have simply elaborated when I requested an argument. Plus, this isn't a Socratic dialogue for I'm not asking any questions back, because I'm not suppose to.

Firstly, your scientific understanding of evolution is awful. Secondly, you're committing the straw man fallacy by misrepresenting evolution.

The god hypothesis answers nothing, it only arises the question of who created god? If we decide that God always existed, we can save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed. If we decide knowing whether God is real is an unanswerable question, we can save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question.

Defining something in certain way does not make it the truth.

Omnipotence is a contradiction by itself.

There cannot be a creator of the first creator by definition. It seems that you do not only not understand the argument put forward as well as taking it out of context.

1) I'm no 100% sure on how full happened but it still follows under the premise of creator and created. and Falls within the chain we have created, my understanding of it is limited but good enough to know that evolution does fall under the chain.

2) God was not created. He was simply there, once again you dont seem to understand the argument. On the other hand if you are claiming the universe was not created at all, then you are claiming that the God you believe in is the universe since the universe must have the power to create yet not be created.

3) If we are truly agreeing that God just existed then the Universe need not exist without being created since God would have created the universe. There is no step to skip and no logical reason to assume God cannot exist without a universe to be in. You are actually the one presenting the logical fallacy not me.

4) Although that statement is true, it is widely accepted amongst beliefs in God(one god not multiples) that he created without being created. As i said omnipotence and omniscience is up to debate so there is no need to bring these problems in since they are not essential for proving the existence of God.

5) Do not confuse God without your cookie cutter christian version of it. God in the simplest of simple terms is the being that creates without being created.

 

[Cann!bal]

There cannot be a creator of the first creator by definition. It seems that you do not only not understand the argument put forward as well as taking it out of context.

You can't define god in a certain way to avoid logical fallacies. Doing so, is a fallacy itself.

1) I'm no 100% sure on how full happened but it still follows under the premise of creator and created. and Falls within the chain we have created, my understanding of it is limited but good enough to know that evolution does fall under the chain.

I recommend watching a couple of simple videos on the basics of evolution on YouTube for starters.

2) God was not created. He was simply there, once again you dont seem to understand the argument. On the other hand if you are claiming the universe was not created at all, then you are claiming that the God you believe in is the universe since the universe must have the power to create yet not be created.

I understand the argument, I've heard it plenty. Only a idiot would claim that the universe wasn't created at all, do not put words in my mouth. I don't believe in a god. The universe is not god, don't be ridiculous, it is the result of physics at the scale of essentially absolute nothing.

3) If we are truly agreeing that God just existed then the Universe need not exist without being created since God would have created the universe. There is no step to skip and no logical reason to assume God cannot exist without a universe to be in. You are actually the one presenting the logical fallacy not me.

I never agreed that god just existed, again, don't put words in my mouth. I don't even believe in a god. Adding god into the equation to attempt to solve it is putting in a step. However, we can simply go back a step and conclude without god. I wasn't saying, therefore, god cannot exist without a universe -- that point is entirely irrelevant from mine anyways. There is no fallacy.

4) Although that statement is true, it is widely accepted amongst beliefs in God(one god not multiples) that he created without being created. As i said omnipotence and omniscience is up to debate so there is no need to bring these problems in since they are not essential for proving the existence of God.

Just because other beliefs accept it as truth does not mean it is true. That's a variation of an ad populum fallacy. Omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory concepts, they can not be, therefore, there is no debate.

5) Do not confuse God without your cookie cutter christian version of it. God in the simplest of simple terms is the being that creates without being created.

Again, you cannot define god as eternal to avoid logical fallacies. Doing so is an argument from ignorance itself ironically.

 

[Nevermind]

I didn't even have to post here. Cann!bal said it all.

 

[Quattro]

You can't define god in a certain way to avoid logical fallacies. Doing so, is a fallacy itself.

=> I think you are quite confused as to what a fallacy is. God must be defined in some sort of way otherwise we could claim God and a squirrel were the same thing lol. I took the most simplistic and universal definition of God in my argument. Please provide me with an appropriate definition of God pretty sure mine is correct.


I recommend watching a couple of simple videos on the basics of evolution on YouTube for starters.

I have already admitted to my ignorance on the subject, there is no need to go further, as stated you only need a limited knowledge to know that it falls within the creator-created chain.


I understand the argument, I've heard it plenty. Only a idiot would claim that the universe wasn't created at all, do not put words in my mouth. I don't believe in a god. The universe is not god, don't be ridiculous, it is the result of physics at the scale of essentially absolute nothing.

So then I guess you are saying you are the idiot because you were the one to claim that the universe just existed without being created, not me. Please re-read your post and then re-read mine. Apparently you dont seem to recognize what you posted or how a response works. You are the one actually putting words in my mouth ironically. Also You say God does not exist as a fact yet you have supplied no evidence to prove it. Interesting how naive you are.


I never agreed that god just existed, again, don't put words in my mouth. I don't even believe in a god. Adding god into the equation to attempt to solve it is putting in a step. However, we can simply go back a step and conclude without god. I wasn't saying, therefore, god cannot exist without a universe -- that point is entirely irrelevant from mine anyways. There is no fallacy.

You said in your statement the following - If we decide that God always existed, we can save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed. I then responded in the hypothetical by saying IF WE ARE - I think you are putting words in your own mouth sir for I have done no such thing. I never stated you believed in a God(capital G not lowercase) nor do I expect you since that would ruin the entire purpose of this argument. Philosophy is about curing false beliefs and I am in the process of curing your false belief that ALL arguments for God are illogical. Also your argument makes no sense, if we were to 'go back a step' it would still require a primary creator that was not created, and by definition that is God.


Just because other beliefs accept it as truth does not mean it is true. That's a variation of an ad populum fallacy. Omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory concepts, they can not be, therefore, there is no debate.

I never once brought about the fallacy of the popular belief. Nor have I ever used that as an argument. Why are you creating statements that dont exist in an attempt to prove your point? The many will never triumph over the One a lesson Socrates, Plato, and Artistotle thoroughly prove.

Again, you cannot define god as eternal to avoid logical fallacies. Doing so is an argument from ignorance itself ironically.

I also never once defined God as eternal either simply as a creator who was not created. Once again please stop pulling comments out of thin air.

Do me a favor before you reply. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE thoroughly READ the entire argument letter for letter and respond in a way that actually disproves my argument with EVIDENCE. For I have seen no such attempts on your part. Since you were the one that provided the thesis stating 'All arguments for God are logical fallacies' it is your duty to prove this argument since you are the provider of the thesis. I have given one objection which so far you have not been able to handle. I look forward to your response.

 

[Cann!bal]

=> I think you are quite confused as to what a fallacy is. God must be defined in some sort of way otherwise we could claim God and a squirrel were the same thing lol. I took the most simplistic and universal definition of God in my argument. Please provide me with an appropriate definition of God pretty sure mine is correct.

I'm in no state of confusion. A squirrel can be defined as likewise of god, however, it doesn't mean it's true. You're essentially in the same predicament by defining god as eternal.

God - creator and ruler of the universe.

You're also exhibiting an argument from personal incredulity fallacy and continuing to display the argument from ignorance fallacy.

I have already admitted to my ignorance on the subject, there is no need to go further, as stated you only need a limited knowledge to know that it falls within the creator-created chain.

I was simply telling you to expand your knowledge on the subject. Don't interpret it wrongly.

So then I guess you are saying you are the idiot because you were the one to claim that the universe just existed without being created, not me. Please re-read your post and then re-read mine. Apparently you dont seem to recognize what you posted or how a response works. You are the one actually putting words in my mouth ironically. Also You say God does not exist as a fact yet you have supplied no evidence to prove it. Interesting how naive you are.

I never necessarily claimed I believed it, the quote below was simply addressing that it's pointless to conclude that god always existed, since you can just save a step and conclude the universe always existed. However, the quote doesn't mean that the universe was not created. The nothingness before the big bang could have been eternal, in terms of infinity, despite the universe not of physically existing, but existing within the nothingness of the prior singularity time. It's paradoxical exactly like time travel, however, still makes logical sense in conclusion.

"If we decide that God always existed, we can save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed."
"The universe [...] is the result of physics at the scale of essentially absolute nothing."

The burden of proof is not upon atheists, rather theists for extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. All logic points towards the likeliness of there being no god, I'm not naive.

You said in your statement the following - If we decide that God always existed, we can save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed. I then responded in the hypothetical by saying IF WE ARE - I think you are putting words in your own mouth sir for I have done no such thing. I never stated you believed in a God(capital G not lowercase) nor do I expect you since that would ruin the entire purpose of this argument. Philosophy is about curing false beliefs and I am in the process of curing your false belief that ALL arguments for God are illogical. Also your argument makes no sense, if we were to 'go back a step' it would still require a primary creator that was not created, and by definition that is God.

I see, however, the hypothetical implied that I thought the universe was not created, which I don't think.

You stated I believed in a god here, and not capitalizing god is still grammatically correct.

"[...]if you are claiming the universe was not created at all, then you are claiming that the God you believe in is the universe."

I never once brought about the fallacy of the popular belief. Nor have I ever used that as an argument. Why are you creating statements that dont exist in an attempt to prove your point? The many will never triumph over the One a lesson Socrates, Plato, and Artistotle thoroughly prove.

You exhibited a variation of the ad populum fallacy, (also known as appeal to the majority, however, in this case it's not the majority, it's how you described it as "widely accepted," hence, variation.) by using other peoples' ideologies to support your argument. The fallacy is in the assumption that people's belief or acceptance in the proposition somehow validates and supports it. The truth is independent.

I also never once defined God as eternal either simply as a creator who was not created. Once again please stop pulling comments out of thin air.

That's essentially what eternal means, you goof.

 

[Quattro]

I'm in no state of confusion. A squirrel can be defined as likewise of god, however, it doesn't mean it's true. You're essentially in the same predicament by defining god as eternal.

=> I didnt define God as eternal please provide proof where i did so. Once again i emplore you to read. Before you write.

God - creator and ruler of the universe.

Yes he is the creator by definition, not once did I state he is the ruler. Once again PLEASE READ and do not make up false facts.

You're also exhibiting an argument from personal incredulity fallacy and continuing to display the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Provide evidence please. You are creating thesis statements without providing evidence, obviously you weren't a very good essay writer or debater in school.

I was simply telling you to expand your knowledge on the subject. Don't interpret it wrongly.

Not a science major but it would be a great idea to expand my horizons, but for the purpose of this argument my current knowledge of the subject is enough to suffice.

I never necessarily claimed I believed it, the quote below was simply addressing that it's pointless to conclude that god always existed, since you can just save a step and conclude the universe always existed. However, the quote doesn't mean that the universe was not created. The nothingness before the big bang could have been eternal, in terms of infinity, despite the universe not of physically existing, but existing within the nothingness of the prior singularity time. It's paradoxical exactly like time travel, however, still makes logical sense in conclusion.

You cannot simply save a step and conclude the universe always existed everything by definition must be created in order to exist, and the only being that exists without being created but created is God.

"If we decide that God always existed, we can save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed."
"The universe [...] is the result of physics at the scale of essentially absolute nothing."

The burden of proof is not upon atheists, rather theists for extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. All logic points towards the likeliness of there being no god, I'm not naive.

Obviously you have never written a paper or been to a debate before. The provider of this thesis statement always carries the burden of proof since a thesis statement by definition is a statement that needs proving. Also for you to claim the burdon of proof must fall on theists is very arrogant of you. You claim all logic points towards the likeliness of there being no God yet you have yet to provide any evidence to support your point.

I see, however, the hypothetical implied that I thought the universe was not created, which I don't think.

You stated I believed in a god here, and not capitalizing god is still grammatically correct.

=> God must always have a capital G otherwise you are not writing about God. Its a commonly known fact. anyways I dont have time to quibble over grammar on the internet.

"[...]if you are claiming the universe was not created at all, then you are claiming that the God you believe in is the universe."


You exhibited a variation of the ad populum fallacy, (also known as appeal to the majority, however, in this case it's not the majority, it's how you described it as "widely accepted," hence, variation.) by using other peoples' ideologies to support your argument. The fallacy is in the assumption that people's belief or acceptance in the proposition somehow validates and supports it. The truth is independent.

It is not a fallacy for this reason, every term must have a definition. If I were to tell you the sky appears to be blue during the day and many people agreed that the sky appeared to be Blue it would not make that statement a fallacy. It is only logically incorrect if the definition is not fact.

God is by definition a creator that is not created. I only use the term widely accepted in my argument since I am sure that not 100% agree with the definition just like i am sure there is at least on crazy person out there who honestly believes the sky appears to be orange during the day.

I do not any where in my argument claim that since a majority of people believe in God he must exist, that is naive and ridiculous since the one may correct in the face of the many.

That's essentially what eternal means, you goof.


Eternal does not mean that in the slightest, but it doesnt even matter if it does or it doesnt, it wont change the argument, lets assume God is eternal since he is outside of time since he created it. Does that change the argument? I dont believe it does, in fact it most likely strengthens it.

Now I have a question for you,

Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe a miracle can occur? Can someone miraculously be healed of cancer?

 

[Cann!bal]

Please quote me properly, it's obnoxious when you don't.

=> I didnt define God as eternal please provide proof where i did so. Once again i emplore you to read. Before you write.

You defined god as a creator who was not created which is the essential equivalent of defining him as eternal. L-L-LOGIC. Think before you write.

Yes he is the creator by definition, not once did I state he is the ruler. Once again PLEASE READ and do not make up false facts.

You asked me to provide a definition of god and I provided the simplest definition of a god, yet, you here you are making accusations that I claimed you said he was the ruler of the universe when it was simply the definition I gave. I should be telling you to read more thoroughly, not the contrary.

Provide evidence please. You are creating thesis statements without providing evidence, obviously you weren't a very good essay writer or debater in school.

"Please provide me with an appropriate definition of God pretty sure mine is correct."

This sentence implies an argument from personal incredulity fallacy. In this fallacy, one argues that because they do not find a premise to be likely or believable, it cannot be true, regardless of evidence(which I provided.) The fallacy lies in presenting one's beliefs about a proposition as evidence.

"=> I think you are quite confused as to what a fallacy is. God must be defined in some sort of way otherwise we could claim God and a squirrel were the same thing lol. I took the most simplistic and universal definition of God in my argument. Please provide me with an appropriate definition of God pretty sure mine is correct."

This paragraph implies an argument from ignorance. In this fallacy, an appeal to ignorance is made as one argues that a premise is true because it has not been proven false. The premise is your definition of god being creatorless and eternal. You do not know that god is creatorless and eternal, however, it can be proven false for they're attributes given to an unfalsifiable and untestable concept.

You cannot simply save a step and conclude the universe always existed everything by definition must be created in order to exist, and the only being that exists without being created but created is God.

Yes, you can, if you're going to continue to deny valid logic I will cease to debate with you.

Obviously you have never written a paper or been to a debate before. The provider of this thesis statement always carries the burden of proof since a thesis statement by definition is a statement that needs proving. Also for you to claim the burdon of proof must fall on theists is very arrogant of you. You claim all logic points towards the likeliness of there being no God yet you have yet to provide any evidence to support your point.

Any thought as to why apologetics always are the one putting forth an argument in formal debates? It's because the burden of proof is upon them, they're the one's making the claims, thus, trying to suffice and prove that apologetic claim with an argument.

You blatantly don't understand the logic that extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. If I was I meet a leprechaun and went to Jupiter to have tea with him, however, claimed I was incapable of proving solid evidence of my claim, would you believe me?

It's not arrogant, it's simply a matter of logic.

My response of "The burden of proof is not upon atheists, rather theists for extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. All logic points towards the likeliness of there being no god, I'm not naive," was directed towards "Also You say God does not exist as a fact yet you have supplied no evidence to prove it. Interesting how naive you are."

=> God must always have a capital G otherwise you are not writing about God. Its a commonly known fact. anyways I dont have time to quibble over grammar on the internet.

I'm the most grammatically literate user on this forum. I wouldn't state contrary if it weren't true.

It is not a fallacy for this reason, every term must have a definition. If I were to tell you the sky appears to be blue during the day and many people agreed that the sky appeared to be Blue it would not make that statement a fallacy. It is only logically incorrect if the definition is not fact.

"It is only logically incorrect if the definition is not fact," PRECISELY! The claim you are making is argument from ignorance fallacy, because of the aforementioned logic in quote three's rebuttal.

God is by definition a creator that is not created. I only use the term widely accepted in my argument since I am sure that not 100% agree with the definition just like i am sure there is at least on crazy person out there who honestly believes the sky appears to be orange during the day.

Again, defining god as creatorless and eternal is an argument from ignorance fallacy, refer to quote three's rebuttal.

I do not any where in my argument claim that since a majority of people believe in God he must exist, that is naive and ridiculous since the one may correct in the face of the many.

That's not what the fallacy implies. It implies that somehow their belief helps validate and support your claim, despite truth being independent, regardless of the populous.

Now I have a question for you,

Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe a miracle can occur? Can someone miraculously be healed of cancer?

That's three questions, not one. However, asking three questions was quite pointless, they're all asking the question, and the answer is no.

Also, stop using the phrase 'by definition,' because essentially every time you do, you're exhibiting fallacious logic, because you are providing your personal definition to avoid other logical fallacies.

 

[Beats]

I have a question.

What made you come to believe that God isn't real.

Like when did you become an Atheist?