New help with an argument

[Arrow]

I've gotten myself into an argument about God on another forum. I say he does not exist. The reply I've gotten is a dodge, so I need something come back with. Below is last post. I am quoted in << >>:

<<
Conner, ever hear of Occam's razor? Its a logical methodolgy that basically states "that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed" to explain something (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html). God is an unnecessary variable and therefore is ignored. As God is not needed to explain anything, there is no proof for his existance. So why should I believe in him? Because some book written by a man thousands of years ago, used by those in power to maintain and expand power, and that threatens eternal damnation if I don't believe, says I should believe? That's a load of bunk.
>>



I say you should believe in him because he exists, whether or not you can personally prove that doesnt matter. If he is an unnecessary variable then it does not stop him from existing. In fact in science it is often the case that unnecessary variables in equations allow us paths to simplify the entire equation.



<<
Just? If you define just as the genecidal blood-letting of the Old Testiment or that God would condemn the nicess person in the world to hell for not believing in him while letting in scum that do as just, then fine. The God presented by Christianity and Judaism is a murdering, selfish, petty tyrant. Reminds me of Saddam Hussian.
>>



The god of the old testement was more alegory than fact, so don't let that guide your views. also no one religion knows the full truth about god so do not place your diaproval based on the judaeochristianic views. Every action you take has the possibility it will end up hurting someone, based on the laws of chaos theory. That would make every action we take evil, and therfor open to God's wrath.

"Just" means that he is bound to the rules we can't understand, that allow him to act only when it is right to do so, not because we feel it right to be so.

To view the full debate, go to here: http://forums.sudhian.com/messagepost.c ... tid=208709

It was a why I am/aren't religious thread, with most everyone slapping their backs for believeing, until I showed up and stated why I don't believe. My first post is on the middle of page 5.

[Mr Bean]

*Bullshit sense tingling

I say you should believe in him because he exists, whether or not you can personally prove that doesnt matter.

I say you should believe in the Glorius Pink Unicorn because she exists, We both have equal proof for the assertion therfor by your logic, they must both exist

If he is an unnecessary variable then it does not stop him from existing

No but it does not prove he exists either now does it? All he has confirmed is the fact he can't prove the existance of God nor can he disprove Science

In fact in science it is often the case that unnecessary variables in equations allow us paths to simplify the entire equation.

Plain old Bullshit! Unnecessary Variables refer to USELESS UNHELPFUL things, They don't simplfy anything they add to complexity! He simply stated the opposite of what they where and hoped you would not do your research

The god of the old testement was more alegory than fact, so don't let that guide your views.

He's more Mythical than alegory or fact to be honset, mostly as he does not exist

so don't let that guide your views. also no one religion knows the full truth about god so do not place your diaproval based on the judaeochristianic views

Yet they all claim they do and they have just as much Evidance to support Allah as they do the Judaeo-christian God, As they do the Pink Unicorn

Every action you take has the possibility it will end up hurting someone, based on the laws of chaos theory

Chaos Theory can be better explained as the following
A name given to recent wide-ranging attempts to uncover the statistical regularity hidden in processes that otherwise appear random, such as turbulence in fluids, weather patterns, predator-prey cycles, the spread of disease, and even the onset of war. Systems described as "chaotic" are extremely susceptible to changes in initial conditions. As a result, small uncertainties in measurement are magnified over time, making chaotic systems predictable in principle but unpredictable in practice.
Not that every action you take can hurt somone

That would make every action we take evil, and therfor open to God's wrath.

Ahh so the we are all going to Hell line, And don't forget murdering women and children is wrong unless I do it

"Just" means that he is bound to the rules we can't understand, that allow him to act only when it is right to do so, not because we feel it right to be so.

More, God Works in mysterious ways bullshit that means they don't even have their philospy togther


Make sure you press him home about the fact the Unicorn(Or your choice of fictional Charater) has equal proof as his God does and ask him why he does belive it exist if he belives God exist

[Arrow]

Thanks Mr. Bean! I remembered the Unicorn argument, but couldn't anwser the "mysterious ways" argument. Now I can. Hehehe.

[Antie]

I say you should believe in him because he exists, whether or not you can personally prove that doesnt matter.

"He exists" is exactly what you're trying to prove. To say simply "he exists" as if you've already shown his existence is to beg the question.

[Darth Wong]

Two words: CIRCULAR LOGIC. He can't prove God exists by simply stating "he exists" as a premise, thus concluding that he must exist.

[Darth Servo]

Every action you take has the possibility it will end up hurting someone, based on the laws of chaos theory. That would make every action we take evil, and therfor open to God's wrath.

Accidental harm is evil according to this guy. Its unfortunate that harm can be done this way, but evil is deliberate action.

[HemlockGrey]

Wheeeee...what is so hard about admitting that a belief in God is completely irrational and illogical, and only remotely viable because it does not directly contradict scientific fact?

[neoolong]

Wheeeee...what is so hard about admitting that a belief in God is completely irrational and illogical, and only remotely viable because it does not directly contradict scientific fact?

Because it would mean that there isn't anybody out there that loves them despite them being total morons.

Consider it a deep psychological need.

[Arrow]

Well, the person I was debating hasn't posted since yesterday. A biologist has now taken up a discussion about the origins of life, and I've explained some of the Big Bang. Seems to have changed a couple of peoples views.

[HemlockGrey]

Because it would mean that there isn't anybody out there that loves them despite them being total morons.

Consider it a deep psychological need.

Not necessarily. I believe in God and I have no trouble admitting the irrationality and illogicality of my beliefs.

Of course, I'm not a YEC or anything. Is this person YECist?

[neoolong]

Because it would mean that there isn't anybody out there that loves them despite them being total morons.

Consider it a deep psychological need.

Not necessarily. I believe in God and I have no trouble admitting the irrationality and illogicality of my beliefs.

Of course, I'm not a YEC or anything. Is this person YECist?

I was talking about their need for an omnipotent being to protect them from taking responsibility for themselves. Not any specific person. But many those with a literalist interpretation, keeps them from having to think.

[Arrow]

This person doesn't seem to be a YEC. He says he has a science degree and is an engineer, but I'm wondering what field he's in.

Another thing I said to him was: Assuming there is a God, what if he isn't Christian. No reply on that comment.

[Darth Servo]

He says he has a science degree and is an engineer, but I'm wondering what field he's in.

Probably SOCIAL science and engineering.