Okay ATHEISTS <rolls sleaves>

I don't think you need to know what 'caused God' in order to know of him.

We see the universe and know it's there. We just don't know how.

On a side note:

The whole zeus or spaghetti monster arguments are simply strawman arguments... None of us are talking about zeus and none of us are talking about cthulu or anything else. Why? because you change the attributes/characteristics of something that we know little about. Could you understand that God is a possibility? Yes. Do we know what God is exactly? No. GOD IS A POTATOE IN A SKY! Nope, you change the entire argument and add too many assumptions.

We can go into the whole burden of proof fiasco, and come out of it arguing how the other is being illogical. If someone mentioned, "Well, you have to FEEL for God, not think of what he is because God requires no label and labeling will only confuse us to what it actually is - Our brains are so puny yet we believe we are so intelligent as to know of everything." Then everyone would jump on that person for not using their logical mind... as if all truth can only be arrived through logic. In order to prove that you would ironically require logic.

Logic itself, although very useful, always arrives arrives back where it started. All logic is ultimately circular, and all concepts are inevitably connected to one another (So all proof depends on circular logic... if you look far enough back... not that it makes these proofs invalid... but all 'proofs' ultimately depend on something that also requires 'proof') - You can say God/nature is circular, and say that circles symbolize infinite - Logic is a tool, and our very tool is circular in nature.

 

Once again...All the "We No Like God Him No Reals" have not tackled my question head on. What in life has been created that has no point of reference. Something we all talk about. That has NO point of reference. Thank you.

 

you think you can use the fact that people can or cannot reference something as proof that that something exists?

imaginary things can also be referenced. do you think that makes them more real?

 

All you seem to do is say that no one's argued against it. YES WE BLOODY WELL HAVE.

Again, in case you didn't quite manage it:

You're statement can be used to denounce God, because how can God exist without a point of reference.

Want your point of reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

*cough* *cough*

 

The game of life is a gamble (You Bet Your Life), and the only way not to play is to die. Even non-decisions are default bets. Nothing is certain, not even that, and all choices have consequences. But a good gambler plays the odds, relies on all the available evidence, including personal experience, and plays hunches. Scientific or courtroom proof won't get us far with the most important decisons we make in love, employment, etc. At best, we rely on substantial evidence and realize that we could be wrong and may never know it. I'm betting on Christianity, but I can understand why others might bet on a different horse.

 

Sure you can, close your eyes and imagine a DOT, Now where's your point of reference?

450 Terahertz, 550 Terahertz, 650 Terahertz...
Pick any specific beam of light energy and and blast it through a light separating prism and what you will see is only that specific color of energy.

If you mean create a new color, only millions of years of evolution can do that. Our eyes see only three colors Red, green and Blue. Our brain interpolates all other colors from these three.

You see, millions of years ago it became beneficial for some animals to detect these frequencies of light. To distinguish food (green), find water (Blue), and threat (Red) or if your a carnivore, more food (Red). This thing called NATURAL SELECTION allowed these animals to thrive and reproduce beyond others and EVOLUTION fine tuned these capabilities to what they are today.

 

Create something WITHOUT a point of reference? Have you heard of dots before? Oh, let's TURN it around again. The Big Bang theory. Which has NOTHING to do with this. Dawkins is NOT pleased with you people.

 

Oh MAN is Elizabeth hot. I'm anti Iraq too. But she is hot.

 

Okay, prisms and evolution are nice. Here's the thing...We saw the reflection and we named it Green. We heard the noise and named it Roar. See where I'm going with this? That's about as Barney as I can make it.

 

Portalguy,

The argument is meaningless.

I will offer an equally valid argument to illustrate:

Can you name a breed of dog that is NOT born with internal organs?

You can't, can you? It's just not possible - all dogs are born with internal organs.

So God must exist.

With all due respect, the argument can be torn to shreds at a glance. Several people have done so in this thread, repeatedly. It was a fun idea, and I truly believe you mean well, but if anything, this thread will disuade potential believers by making them realize how immature and baseless such concepts are.

Peacelove,
Aldousage

 

come on guys lets admit it poroleguy is right the flying spaghetti monster is real.

 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster! Good stuff. Never heard that one before. MY GOD MAN (pun intended) Any of you made the debate team?

 

Immature and baseless? EVERYONE on this thread, you included, made up their own question and answered it. What the hell does a dog with no internal organs have to do with a POINT OF REFERENCE? I'm not sure why everyone is misunderstanding what I'm saying. You know that there's dogs right? Okay, you have some experience with such a thing. Okay, maybe you can make up a GIANT dog with no internal organs. Still, your POF (moving on to hip abbreviations) is the original dog.

And how the hell are you going to insult me and end your message with Peacelove? LOL

 

What would be the point of reference for god?

 

Will you please explain your point of reference argument?

When you create something, you use some sort of building block, there does not even need to be a name for this block. The first block becomes the point of reference for the rest of the blocks to fall in place.

And this proves God exists how??? Please do explain yourself.

 

so are you trying to tell me that santa clause and the tooth fairy are real too?

 

Portalguy

I am sincere in wishing you peace and love. To disagree with someone is not necessarily to dislike/disrespect them. I think you have some difficulty seeing things in less than absolute terms. You seem to feel that you hold a universal truth which sets you apart from those with whom you debate.

This is because you don't understand the concept of human perception. The colour we would eventually come to call "green" existed long before humans (perceivers) did. The first person to see green didn't understand prisms any better than you do. He/she had no need for yellow and blue - even if the grass does. If that person then perceived that blade of grass to be an all-knowing sphere of mercury, should his opinion be held as fact merely because he had no prior experience with mercury (i.e: no earlier reference)? Or is more likely that the subject is confused and/or ignorant?

Some gods are self-referencial, in the form of religious scripture. Many (probably all) are based on earlier versions of the god concept, originating with the tribal animistic religions found on all continents. You can find hundreds and hundreds of references to the varying god concepts throughout the world and throughout history.

If I present to you a concept called "Penkfrou" which is a wide-stretching entity of pride and tri-modal dignity that floats around the fifty-eighth dimension within a pool of weightless hreskunite, should you take it as fact - due to your not understanding the concepts without being able to base them on some previously-learned set of ideas?

Or would that be tremendously ignorant?

Peacelove,
Aldousage

 

If the universe needs a point of reference, why does this logic suspend when discussing God? To me this is a circular rational- What created the universe- God? What created God? If every object exists in relation to another, then a universe must exist in relation to God, and God must exist in relation to the universe. But even this, we assume that reality is an 'object,' and God is an 'object.' Such analytical thought may be a language that is limited, and incomprehensible when applied to understanding the source of, well, anything. That is why it seems most appropriate for many mystics of both east and west recommend silence of the mind in order to approach God, ultimate truth, etc. Whatever it is, it is not a subject, or object of our consciousness- that would be limiting it, and our own potential for wisdom.

 

Well, let me explain to you why I question your comments about peace and love. First off you've called me immature and talked to me in a condescending tone. Then called me ignorant. WOW Thanks for all the peace in love. Try not to kick any puppies on the way home.

Okay, I'll break this down into POWDER Aldousage. I understand the theory of evolution. I'm talking MENTALLYa. MENTALLY SPEAKING WE CANNOT CREATE SOMETHING WITHOUT A POINT OF REFERENCE. Of course you cannot make green turn to mercury with your magic wand. Again WAY off base.

How about this. You see the grass. It's grass. Pluck it. See it? It's grass. Now people in the desert can tell you you're full of crap. Why? They've never seen this grass of which you speak. Yet it's held as truth in most peoples of the world. There's this vegetation known as grass. Why is it held as truth? There was an original point of reference.

I do understand how science has explained away mythology in TONS of ways. I'm not that slow. Granted I'm not curing aneurysms on my days off but I don't think my cousin is hot. But, there has to be some validity to a truth if so many people have an almost unwavering belief in such a being. Where did this original concept first come from?

 

man im religious and I think this is totally stupid. gone off the deep end much.