If God did not exist

[daws101]

Engendering god belief has some utility as a means of social and moral control. For instance, if you can convince the people there is a supernatural being who is always watching them and will punish them even for those transgressions they would otherwise get away with, that concept is useful to society as a means of keeping bad people in check.

God is also a means of explaining the unexplained and seemingly unexplainable, endowing life with easily understood and seemingly objective purpose, and alleviating fear of mortality.

Is a god "necessary" though? Hardly. There are other solutions to all the problems gods cure.

 

[itfitzme]

You think things don't exist until the *evidence* has been presented, and accepted, by you?

According to that logic, you are, in fact, god himself.

this coming from a poster whose every every breath is based on the false premise of god...

An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false – one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.

^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.

I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that, I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.

Well, you should read and study it. I have two degrees, one in a scientific discipline, and a certificate in applied statistics. I have tutored both math and science.

I can assure you what he posted is both correct and relevant.

Clearly, your studies in English have led you to the impression that whatever you can write must therefore be true, a logical fallacy.

 

[itfitzme]

Engendering god belief has some utility as a means of social and moral control. For instance, if you can convince the people there is a supernatural being who is always watching them and will punish them even for those transgressions they would otherwise get away with, that concept is useful to society as a means of keeping bad people in check.

God is also a means of explaining the unexplained and seemingly unexplainable, endowing life with easily understood and seemingly objective purpose, and alleviating fear of mortality.

Is a god "necessary" though? Hardly. There are other solutions to all the problems gods cure.

More so, God is used as a way to defer responsibility. This has become abundantly clear. In on regard, God is prayed to and asked to do something, deferring the responsibility of actual personal accomplishment. In another regard, God is used in the sense of "we didn't do it, god did". As well, and what is most objectionable and dangerous, is the use of god as an absolute authority and therefor justification for inappropriate behavior. This is, of course, another deferment of responsibility. It is God's law, God's rule, what God wants, as if the person has some special connection to God and therefore knows what God wants.

I do think that God is necessary for some people who are otherwise sociopathic, unable to have a moral compass without it.

 

[Ropey]

Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. It would be more comforting if I knew I was part of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.

Why? What difference could it possibly make with all the brew-ha ha over "free will"?

Free will isn't the issue and there's no brew-ha over the real issue.

Free won't.

I will do it vs I won't do it.

 

[daws101]

Engendering god belief has some utility as a means of social and moral control. For instance, if you can convince the people there is a supernatural being who is always watching them and will punish them even for those transgressions they would otherwise get away with, that concept is useful to society as a means of keeping bad people in check.

God is also a means of explaining the unexplained and seemingly unexplainable, endowing life with easily understood and seemingly objective purpose, and alleviating fear of mortality.

Is a god "necessary" though? Hardly. There are other solutions to all the problems gods cure.

More so, God is used as a way to defer responsibility. This has become abundantly clear. In on regard, God is prayed to and asked to do something, deferring the responsibility of actual personal accomplishment. In another regard, God is used in the sense of "we didn't do it, god did". As well, and what is most objectionable and dangerous, is the use of god as an absolute authority and therefor justification for inappropriate behavior. This is, of course, another deferment of responsibility. It is God's law, God's rule, what God wants, as if the person has some special connection to God and therefore knows what God wants.

I do think that God is necessary for some people who are otherwise sociopathic, unable to have a moral compass without it.

that would seem to be most believers.
I do wonder what would happen if it was proven conclusively there was no god....

 

[daws101]

Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. It would be more comforting if I knew I was part of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.

Why? What difference could it possibly make with all the brew-ha ha over "free will"?

Free will isn't the issue and there's no brew-ha over the real issue.

Free won't.

I will do it vs I won't do it.

 

[Smilebong]

God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.

 

[daws101]

God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.

wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.

 

[BreezeWood]

God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.

wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.

there is evidence for the existence of God - the Fauna and Flora of Earth - proving otherwise leaves only dust.

 

[Smilebong]

God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.

wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.

I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.

 

[Steven_R]

God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.

wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.

I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.

Fg= (Gm1m2)/r^2 explains stars. Where is the variable for God in that?

 

[orogenicman]

God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.

wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.

there is evidence for the existence of God - the Fauna and Flora of Earth - proving otherwise leaves only dust.

Erm, what? Can you elaborate how the existence of flora and fauna on Earth is evidence for the existence of god? If that flora and fauna didn't exist, what would that be evidence of?

 

[orogenicman]

God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.

wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.

I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.

So, in your opinion, god is a nuclear furnace?

 

[Smilebong]

wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.

I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.

So, in your opinion, god is a nuclear furnace?

No. God is a person. Omnipotent, Onmipresent, Omniscient.

 

[Ropey]

Why? What difference could it possibly make with all the brew-ha ha over "free will"?

Free will isn't the issue and there's no brew-ha over the real issue.

Free won't.

I will do it vs I won't do it.

Think about it. Black vs White. G-d vs Devil, + vs -. Strong nuclear force vs Weak nuclear force....

...Will vs Won't.

 

[BreezeWood]

wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.

there is evidence for the existence of God - the Fauna and Flora of Earth - proving otherwise leaves only dust.

Erm, what? Can you elaborate how the existence of flora and fauna on Earth is evidence for the existence of god? If that flora and fauna didn't exist, what would that be evidence of?

If that flora and fauna didn't exist, what would that be evidence of?

what you feel seeing the rest of our solar system .... a lack of God.

.

 

[orogenicman]

there is evidence for the existence of God - the Fauna and Flora of Earth - proving otherwise leaves only dust.

Erm, what? Can you elaborate how the existence of flora and fauna on Earth is evidence for the existence of god? If that flora and fauna didn't exist, what would that be evidence of?

If that flora and fauna didn't exist, what would that be evidence of?

what you feel seeing the rest of our solar system .... a lack of God.

.

So the existence of flora and fauna on Earth is evidence for your god, but the lack of it elsewhere is evidence against your god? Could you make any less sense?

 

[orogenicman]

I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.

So, in your opinion, god is a nuclear furnace?

No. God is a person. Omnipotent, Onmipresent, Omniscient.

Really? Your god is a person? If your god is omnipotent, and yet allows suffering, birth defects, wars, murder, and natural disasters, wouldn't that imply that your god is also a sociopath?

Here is what Neil deGrasse Tyson says about your "creation":

 

[Steven_R]

 

[Ropey]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5KMjk1UrDk]Howard Stern upsets Tiny Tim about Jesus[/ame]