does cosmic imperfection prove god doesnt exist?

[Toro]

Pascal's Dilemma is the answer!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis

He clearly said that he does not. He just sees no reason to believe in them. So what you just said is false. Please correct, thanks.

 

[ding]

Pascal's Dilemma is the answer!

The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that it is irrational to not have faith.

Not much of a dilemma if you ask me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that it is irrational to not have faith.

* in your particular, preferred brand of iron age magic. Be clear, ding.

 

[BreezeWood]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...

1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.

That's a start.

Correct. You also seem fairly familiar with logic.

The issue with the OP's post right from the start is that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, as attempting to do so leads to fallacies such as the argument from ignorance (as you pointed out) and the circular argument fallacy (in other words, trying to prove circular reasoning, which is typically referred to as 'fundamentalism').

God can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.

And I DO believe in a deity. I've had experiences in my life which have led to the strengthening of that belief. I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists; You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis. You can't prove that there are indeed none, and I can't prove that there indeed IS one (or several). It's a belief based on faith. That's what it comes down to.

.

I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

the christian god was created in the 4th century - no faith necessary, just read their 10,000 page book everything they want you to believe is laid out for your instant gratification. for the like minded faithful in deception, the persecution and victimization of the innocent.

 

[Votto]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I beg to differ.

I'm perfect thus God exists.

 

[ding]

The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that it is irrational to not have faith.

* in your particular, preferred brand of iron age magic. Be clear, ding.

I couldn’t be more clear. Let’s look at this from the perspective of natural selection. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. According to natural selection anything which does not provide a functional advantage gets discarded.

So according to natural selection religion or belief in a higher power must offer a functional advantage. Otherwise, if it were as you believed - worthless - it would have been discarded thousands of years ago.

I am afraid you are going to have to come to grips with the reality that man is a spiritual being because he was made to be a spiritual being. It’s literally in our DNA.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

Are we still trying to explain things we don't understand? Like, we haven't moved on much?

This was just a debate i have never seen take place. Frankly, i think its a darn good one too. Lol

"Their" Gods? How many Gods are there?

Or maybe there aren't any.

Why are we so fixated on Him?

Basic rule of GRAMMAR.

There are many gods

There is one God.

 

[gfm7175]

You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis

He clearly said that he does not. He just sees no reason to believe in them. So what you just said is false. Please correct, thanks.

It seemed to me like he was rejecting the existence of deities on a faith basis. Maybe I was wrong about that and he's actually neither rejecting NOR accepting the existence of any particular deity, but rather is completely indifferent about their existence either way. That would make him agnostic.

If I misunderstood, it wasn't intentional.

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

 

[gfm7175]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...

1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.

That's a start.

Correct. You also seem fairly familiar with logic.

The issue with the OP's post right from the start is that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, as attempting to do so leads to fallacies such as the argument from ignorance (as you pointed out) and the circular argument fallacy (in other words, trying to prove circular reasoning, which is typically referred to as 'fundamentalism').

God can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.

And I DO believe in a deity. I've had experiences in my life which have led to the strengthening of that belief. I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists; You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis. You can't prove that there are indeed none, and I can't prove that there indeed IS one (or several). It's a belief based on faith. That's what it comes down to.

I dont reject deities...so no faith is necessary.

I merely havent been presented with good rationale to believe in one.

Theres a stark difference between a positive claim, that there is or is not a god, and a mere lack of belief, which makes no claim and thus no faith is required. Thats logic 101.

Ahhhh, okay. I might have misunderstood you then. Maybe you are actually indifferent to the existence or non-existence of deities? (Not believing either way?) That would be an agnostic, which doesn't make use of faith and is not a religion of any sort. It instead answers the question with "I don't believe either way" (in other words, "I don't accept either argument as a truth", or "I don't know"). Hopefully I gotcha now.

But do be careful with the "I haven't been presented with good rationale" (and similar) language, as that's getting into a subtle Argument From Ignorance fallacy, and is likely the reason why I felt like you were saying that you believe that gods don't exist.

By claiming that you don't believe that god(s) exist because you haven't been presented with good rationale to believe in their existence, you are subtly committing the argument from ignorance fallacy because you MIGHT have already been presented with good evidence of existence, but are simply ignorant of it. Lack of evidence is not a proof.

Also, you don't have a "lack of belief", since claiming that you "lack belief" in something IS, in and of ITSELF, a belief. Belief is best defined as "the acceptance of an argument as a true" (regardless of whether it is actually true or not).

Theists, Atheists, AND Agnostics ALL hold a particular belief. Theists believe that god(s) exist. Atheists believe that god(s) do not exist. Agnostics believe that human reason is insufficient to determine either way (in other words, they answer the question with "I don't know").

So, maybe you are actually an agnostic, but when you've (twice now, this comment and the prior comment) committed that same subtle argument from ignorance fallacy, it seems like you are instead believing that god(s) don't exist (based on "lack of evidence for existence") rather than believing that human reason is insufficient to determine either way.

That's, I think, where my confusion about your position on the topic is coming from...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

 

[Aponi]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

theres no way to tell no way to prove what or why god did or didnt if he exists or is is only in peoples mind.

 

[gfm7175]

Lack of belief is not a faith claim.
Belief something is, or is not, absent sufficient evidence, is a faith claim.

You can't say that the reasoning for your belief is the "lack of sufficient evidence"...

That commits the (subtle, but still there) Argument From Ignorance Fallacy that I mentioned in the other comment. It is asserting that there is a lack of evidence for or against, and "lack of evidence" is not a proof.

Belief for or against the existence of god(s) need not be justified in any way. Trying to justify that belief leads one into these types of fallacies...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

 

[gfm7175]

Pascal's Dilemma is the answer!

Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy.

Pascal argued that unbelievers shouldn't risk eternal damnation in hell, and that they would instead be smarter to "take action", to believe in God. Basically, it predicts that something bad will happen if we do not take action.

The problem with that is that maybe there is NO "eternal damnation" at all. Maybe NOTHING bad will happen if no action is taken...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

 

[Weatherman2020]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

Everything is perfectly following all laws.

Your premise is in error.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Everything is perfectly following all laws.

Fascinating. So, which law determined there should be more matter than antimatter in our universe?

 

[ding]

Pascal's Dilemma is the answer!

Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy.

Pascal argued that unbelievers shouldn't risk eternal damnation in hell, and that they would instead be smarter to "take action", to believe in God. Basically, it predicts that something bad will happen if we do not take action.

The problem with that is that maybe there is NO "eternal damnation" at all. Maybe NOTHING bad will happen if no action is taken...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

He argued that the benefits of belief is so superior that it was irrational not to believe.

Many people assumed he was talking about life after death rather than life itself.