Ok, I actually read your whole story, but I still must argue that you see if god created the world, man, universe, sperm etc. why didnt he create planes, bikes, and all vast technology. why hasnt he stopped global warming? Why is god letting murderers killing innocents? if god were real he would have stopped and made the earth a peaceful place, but he hasn't
why do innocent people die everyday
what about overpopulation?
why doesnt "god" save their lives or finish off the undeserving ones?
probably because he isnt real...
Now i got a little bored with these arguements so I went to several sites to check for proof of God's Existence
here is one:
THOMAS AQUINAS' 'PROOFS'
The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth
century don't prove anything, and are easily - though I hesitate to
say so, given his eminence - exposed as vacuous. The first three are
just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered
together. All involve an infinite regress - the answer to a
question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum.
1 The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover.
This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God.
Something had to make the first move, and that something we
call God.
2 The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect
has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress.
This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call
God.
3 The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time
when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist
now, there must have been something non-physical to bring
them into existence, and that something we call God.
Now,
All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and
invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted
assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we
allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to
an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need
one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with
any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence,
omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such
human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading
innermost thoughts. Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians
that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If
God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene
to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means
he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not
omnipotent...
Here's a poem:
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?
See, To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God
to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a 'big
bang singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown.
Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.
Edward Lear's Nonsense Recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets
invites us to 'Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into
the smallest possible pieces, proceed to cut them still smaller, eight
or perhaps nine times.' Some regresses do reach a natural
terminator. Scientists used to wonder what would happen if you
could dissect, say, gold into the smallest possible pieces. Why
shouldn't you cut one of those pieces in half and produce an even
smaller smidgen of gold? The regress in this case is decisively
terminated by the atom. The smallest possible piece of gold is a
nucleus consisting of exactly seventy-nine protons and a slightly
larger number of neutrons, attended by a swarm of seventy-nine
electrons. If you 'cut' gold any further than the level of the single
atom, whatever else you get it is not gold. The atom provides a
natural terminator to the Crumboblious Cutlets type of regress. It
is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the
regresses of Aquinas. That's putting it mildly, as we shall see later.
Let's move on down Aquinas' list.
4 The Argument from Degree. We notice that things in the world
differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But
we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum.
Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness
cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum
to set the standard for perfection, and we call that
maximum God.
u call that an argument
? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness
but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect
maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a
pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute
any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equivalently
fatuous conclusion.
Next,
5 The Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design. Things
in the world, especially living things, look as though they
have been designed. Nothing that we know looks designed
unless it is designed. Therefore there must have been a designer,
and we call him God.
Aquinas himself used the analogy of an
arrow moving towards a target, but a modern heat-seeking
anti-aircraft missile would have suited his purpose better.
The argument from design is the only one still in regular use
today, and it still sounds to many like the ultimate knockdown
argument. The young Darwin was impressed by it when, as a
Cambridge undergraduate, he read it in William Paley's Natural
Theology. Unfortunately for Paley, the mature Darwin blew it out
of the water. There has probably never been a more devastating
rout of popular belief by clever reasoning than Charles Darwin's
destruction of the argument from design. It was so unexpected.
Thanks to Darwin, it is no longer true to say that nothing that we
know looks designed unless it is designed. Evolution by natural
selection produces an excellent simulacrum of design, mounting
prodigious heights of complexity and elegance. And among these
eminences of pseudo-design are nervous systems which - among
their more modest accomplishments - manifest goal-seeking
behaviour that, even in a tiny insect, resembles a sophisticated heatseeking
missile more than a simple arrow on target.
I hope you get what im saying :P
Ok, now Kashif, let me translate you're story that god supposedly exists and atheists gets slapped by scholars into the appropriate
language, which is the language of the playground:
'Bet you I can prove God exists.'
'Bet you can't.'
'Right then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect
thing possible.'
'Okay, now what?'
'Now, is that perfect perfect perfect thing real? Does it
exist?'
'No, it's only in my mind.'
'But if it was real it would be even more perfect,
because a really really perfect thing would have to be
better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I've proved that
God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur. All atheists are fools.'
ok now
Douglas Gasking Wrote:1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.
2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.
4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.
5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.
6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.
Ergo:
7 God does not exist.
Needless to say, Gasking didn't really prove that God does not
exist, but also Kashif didnt really prove that God did :P
now finally
I have, however, read wonderful
'proofs' collected at
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/
GodProof.htm, a richly comic numbered list of 'Over Three
Hundred Proofs of God's Existence'. Here's a hilarious half-dozen I picked up,
beginning with Proof Number 36.
36 Argument from Incomplete Devastation: A plane crashed
killing 143 passengers and crew. But one child survived
with only third-degree burns. Therefore God exists.
37 Argument from Possible Worlds: If things had been
different, then things would be different. That would be
bad. Therefore God exists.
38 Argument from Sheer Will: I do believe in God! I do
believe in God! I do I do I do. I do believe in God!
Therefore God exists.
39 Argument from Non-belief: The majority of the world's
population are non-believers in Christianity. This is just
what Satan intended. Therefore God exists.
40 Argument from Post-Death Experience: Person X died an
atheist. He now realizes his mistake. Therefore God exists.
41 Argument from Emotional Blackmail: God loves you.
How could you be so heartless as not to believe in him?
Therefore God exists.
Lmao!!! XD
See those who believe in god are actually the ones who are "fools"
To everyone, especially Kashif, as the arguement is toward you, I hope you read all of this as it was hard work :P
Thank you, and god does not exist
i hope i receive an answer :/
p.s. Nur Nurny Nur Nur means Nah Na Nah Naah Naaah or Nanny Nanny Boo Boo