It we don't believe in Him, it may possibly be much more important that one can prove with 100% certainty that He isn't real, rather than one who already believes to prove that He is, because even the mere possibility that God exists changes everything. As far as believers are concerned, we have mountains of proof. All that said, I'm really not trying to prove God's existence right now. But unbelievers, are you completely, 100% sure it isn't even possible? (Rhetorical). Because if not, there are some pretty heavy implications if the possibility exists ... ya know? That's all.

The thing is, we're both atheists. I simply disbelieve in one more god than you do. There are literally thousands of gods that have been worshipped over time by humans. Think hard about why you don't believe in all those "other gods", and perhaps you will eventually understand why I don't believe in yours. (With apologies to whoever said that first - I'm too lazy to look it up.)

All I know is if I had infinite powers, I would help people. I would educate people. I would make the world a better place. I would not like to punish people if they don't believe in me.

Consider how you would treat your children above the age of 25-30. You try to influence, but leave them to make their own decisions and support them in enjoying the rewards or dealing with the circumstances of such.

We're not chess pieces.

[color="#1c2837"]A) For a thing to exist, there has to be some other thing to have caused it's existence
[color="#1c2837"]B) God is a thing that exists

[color="#1c2837"]If A) and B) are both true then some other thing must have caused god to exist.

A is a false assumption.

Energy exists. What created said energy? Pure energy is not made of something else, and it was not created; only transferred. Since there is not an infinite regression in the physical world. Why would there be one for a being that transcends the physical world?

If god is beyond logic; stop trying to use it![/quote]
This is a trap. People would just come out and start yelling at christians/religious people for being illogical. I prefer to try to represent my faith with logic because one of the most common arguments against it is that it is illogical.

[quote name='_moagstar_' timestamp='1302298788' post='4796108']
[color="#1c2837"]A) For a thing to exist, there has to be some other thing to have caused it's existence
[color="#1c2837"]B) God is a thing that exists

[color="#1c2837"]If A) and B) are both true then some other thing must have caused god to exist.

A is a false assumption.

Energy exists. What created said energy? Pure energy is not made of something else, and it was not created; only transferred. Since there is not an infinite regression in the physical world. Why would there be one for a being that transcends the physical world?[/quote]

But if assumption A is not true, and we accept that it is not necessary for energy to have been created or have some root cause, then why go further than that and postulate the existence of a deity, much less a creator deity? If you can invoke the argument that "God was always here and always will be," can you not do that for the universe, too, and dispense with the need for a creator deity, since we've already explained as much as we need to`?

If god is beyond logic; stop trying to use it!

This is a trap. People would just come out and start yelling at christians/religious people for being illogical. I prefer to try to represent my faith with logic because one of the most common arguments against it is that it is illogical.
[/quote]

God is beyond logic, but I prefer to use logic to represent my faith... Brilliant! Faith is not logical. If it was, it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact. You have trouble conceptualizing how a universe could be created without God. That's okay, a lot of people do. There are dozens of religions with their own creation story, so take your pick. Answers in a little book with no critical thinking required. I'm okay with that, but please stop trying to rationalize your faith as some logical conclusion you have reached that should be obvious to everyone.

A is a false assumption.

I know, it's not my assumption! I was trying to illustrate the fallacy in the good old "God must exist, otherwise how can you explain the fact that humans/planets/galaxies/universes exist" argument. If you're not a proponent of that argument, it wasn't aimed at you.

Basically, at the risk of flogging a dead horse here: If we accept that things can exist without a cause, then it is also possible for the universe to exist without a cause; god becomes superfluous.

Perhaps this kind of paradox is just a limitation of our minds, and perhaps there is another layer of reality waiting to be peeled back (I sincerely hope not). This is all just a perhaps, a possibility. To which one must apply their own level of probability of being true. For me the probability of it turning out to be God, Allah, Yaweh, The Pink Fluffy Elephant or any one of the other infinite 'possible' gods, including no god, is equal.

[color="#1C2837"]Why would there be one for a being that transcends the physical world?
[color="#1C2837"][/quote]

[color="#1C2837"]For god to 'exist' then he very much needs to be part of the physical world (changing the definition of the term existence notwithstanding of course). Anyway as I already said, I'm certainly not of the opinion that there has to be a first cause in order for something to exist.

[color="#1C2837"]This is a trap. People would just come out and start yelling at christians/religious people for being illogical. I prefer to try to represent my faith with logic because one of the most common arguments against it is that it is illogical.
[color="#1C2837"][/quote]

[color="#1C2837"]Maybe my statement came across a bit harsh; but theists are only willing to use logic up to a point. As soon as the logic breaks down or fallacies are highlighted, it's back to the default "Yeah, but what if we consider something outside of logic, something beyond our understanding, something transcending reality". Would it not be more effective to just take that standpoint from the off?

[color="#1c2837"]For god to 'exist' then he very much needs to be part of the physical world (changing the definition of the term existence notwithstanding of course). Anyway as I already said, I'm certainly not of the opinion that there has to be a first cause in order for something to exist.

transcends does not mean that it is not part of something. It means it goes beyond something.

[color="#1c2837"]Maybe my statement came across a bit harsh; but theists are only willing to use logic up to a point. As soon as the logic breaks down or fallacies are highlighted, it's back to the default "Yeah, but what if we consider something outside of logic, something beyond our understanding, something transcending reality". Would it not be more effective to just take that standpoint from the off?
[/quote]
What fallacies? I don't think anything I've said in this thread about my faith is fallacious. If you believe God transcends physical reality, the vast majority of fallacies often related to religion are not fallacies. That does not mean the logic breaks down, it just means you are using a different set of assumptions.

God is beyond logic, but I prefer to use logic to represent my faith... Brilliant! Faith is not logical. If it was, it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact. You have trouble conceptualizing how a universe could be created without God. That's okay, a lot of people do. There are dozens of religions with their own creation story, so take your pick. Answers in a little book with no critical thinking required. I'm okay with that, but please stop trying to rationalize your faith as some logical conclusion you have reached that should be obvious to everyone.

Factual and logical are not the same.

edit: it's probably better to say that logically factual and physically factual are not the same. You can have logical facts that are not physically factual. That said I wouldn't say God is beyond logic. Perhaps beyond our present understanding of logic, but if one views logic as a system to analyze or represent legitimacy then I think there's no way to say that God is beyond logic.

But if assumption A is not true, and we accept that it is not necessary for energy to have been created or have some root cause, then why go further than that and postulate the existence of a deity, much less a creator deity? If you can invoke the argument that "God was always here and always will be," can you not do that for the universe, too, and dispense with the need for a creator deity, since we've already explained as much as we need to`?

Why go to mcdonalds for lunch? Why scratch your nose when it itches? Everyone has their own reasons for their actions or inactions.

I am not arguing that God is the only logical conclusion. It works for me; it's what I believe in. If someone wants to stop there, by all means they should.

Explaining as much as you need to is not the purpose of believing in God. I believe in God because it brings me closer to the person that I'd like to be and I believe it will result in my eventual salvation. It has very little to do with explaining the origins of the universe to me or explaining why the world works the way it does despite the fact that I can justify them within my faith.

For those arguing that the universe must have had a creator extrinsic to itself, the notion that the universe created itself is not in contradiction to any known laws of physics, and one can build model spacetimes in which precisely this occurs. I point you to the following article on the arxiv:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9712/9712344v1.pdf