Proofing God Exists: The Watchmaker Analogy

Hello boys and girls, and welcome to another installment of the God’s argument series: Proofing God Exists. In this episode we will visit another argument that creationists like to use to prove God existence which is the Watchmaker analogy.

The Watchmaker analogy was formulated from William Paley, an opponent of Charles Darwin’s evolution’s argument, although the watchmaker argument has been there since Voltaire and Descrates era. The Watchmaker analogy argues that a watch is an object with complex mechanism in play. And to make such a complex object, there has to be a watchmaker in play to create it. And if you use the same argument as to how trees, animals, humans are complex objects, then it is justifiable that there has to be a creator of such complexities.

This argument, however, falls apart, the same as how the causality argument falls apart with the same reasons. If a complex object needs to be created by a creator, namely God, then there has to be another creator which created God, since he is also a complex object. Unless, you are purposing that God has the power to travel the time backward and creates himself thus he can create the world which makes the whole argument in paradox, then the existence of God itself is contradictory.

This argument also ignores that to make something even existed, you need the material to produce it. So in conclusion, if God creates everything, where does he get the material to create the world since it’s nothing from the beginning? Did he popped out the universe (or the watch) out of thin air? So anyway, if you are aiming to rebute the argument on this controversy, a whole discussion of this can be seen at: https://randomnessthing.com/2011/10/11/proofing-god-exist-the-causality-argument/

However, that’s not my main aim of debunking the Watchmaker Analogy. I’m taking a different perspective in making a counter-argument in this theory. What I’m talking about is that this argument often use as a justification that human sees the world as it is. I’m assuming they are talking about God setting laws to the universe (in this case science) and makes humans sceptic to their God. Then they are saying that you can’t prove God using science because science is the limitation or border to limit humans from seeing God.

However, this assumption again crumbles on its own premise. It creates a dilemma of a God who has limited power. By saying that God creates science as a limiter to the universe, it limits God’s power to intervene with people lives because he has to obey by the science he has created to make the universe works. If he disrupts his own law, the universe we live in will be crushed. This explains why God can’t make people disappear instantly, he has to use either earthquake, heart attack, or death to eliminate people. That’s why your prayers often don’t come in the things you are expecting because God has to work through people to give his grace. That’s why it is so hard to determine a miracle that God’s created since he has to obey the science that he has created, which makes him an impotent God.

However, if you are saying that God is an omnipotent being and can perform miracles all he wants, then God is practically ignorant to the suffering that happens in the world. You have to admit that with all his omnipotence, God just doesn’t care if a child in Africa dies because of starvation. God doesn’t care that thousands of children is abused to do labour work everyday when they are supposed to enjoy their childhood. This of course is the problem of evil and suffering which will be the next discussion for this series.

In the end, this argument left us choosing which kind of God the universe has: an impotent God or a malevolent God?

Advertisements

70 responses to “Proofing God Exists: The Watchmaker Analogy

  1. I don’t believe in God. As I said in a previous comment, I think God is just the personification of what we don’t know shaped into form by desperate people through time.
    That said though, I start to think that whether God exist or not makes little difference, because, as you said “to make something, you need the material to produce it”. I mean, assuming evolution applies to the universe itself in a way, it had to evolve from something.

    You’ve been accurately shooting down the theories that support God’s existence one-by-one. It takes a great deal of blind faith to still believe in God after all this but in the end, there will always be people who’ll ignore what is known and follow the unknown. Not that I blame them or anything, after all, in life, sometimes it’s just better to choose the less painful path.

    Oh by the way, has any of you guys watched COSMOS by Carl Sagan? I think its a very good watch for those interested on the topics we’ve been discussing here.

    Another good and solid post regarding the matter, nice job :)

  2. @Lucy, Your are becoming my favorite blog writer, anywhere. Never have I met a person, who could put complicated things, in such a simple dialogue and make it work. Not to mention everytime you post, I never find anything I can disagree with. I feel the same way about things. I am just pretty crude in how i put things.

    I have forwarded your posts to some of my good friends, and some of my christian friends, who aside from the whole christian thing are pretty smart. Maybe your way writing things out mihgt get to them.

    As always keep up the good work

  3. Well, doesn’t this just debunk the existence of the Judeo-christians interpretation of god? Everyone knows by now that I’m the “what if” type of person, so, WHAT IF god himself lives in a providing environment of his own (in the judeo-christian sense, this would be “Heaven”…don’t get me wrong, I believe in an after-life, just that its more personal than universal but thats a discussion for later). So I also ask WHAT IF god himself is also the product of a much more higher entity.

    What I am really trying to say pertains to the whole “existence of God” argument and not just this one. It is that we can never ask too many questions. There is an unlimited number of what-if’s to ask and that’s why none of us will ever get it exactly right, because we can’t answer all those what-if’s.

    The main reason I believe in the watchmaker theory is because it can have some many what-if’s (and personally it just seemed like it suited me, that I genuinely believed it) unlike other interpretations of god that is just “this, that, end-of-story.”

    I also like the watchmaker analogy because…well if we look at the universe in a tangible sense, everything is turning (galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc.) like the gears of a massive watch! Sorry, kinda drifted off-topic in the middle there.

    • If God lives in a providing environment of his own, then it creates a paradox of infinite chains of cause. As Lucy said, God has to travel back in time and creates a sustainable environment for himself. Also if God is a product of much more higher entity, then God is not considered as omnipotent since he is inferior to his creator And again we creates a chain of infinite cause (I think I can imagine Lucy is grinning because of this).
      This is why the watchmaker analogy crumbles on its own argument. It is such a weak argument which is not thought thoroughly.

      • I didn’t state any of those as facts, the key-words were “what if”. SO….what if god did travel through time to create himself, and what if he traveled back in time after building a flux-capacitor and putting it into a Delorean! This is very unlikely though, but thats just because I’m making the point, a point that states that there are a lot of what-if’s when we are talking about the existence of a god, we have a lot of loop-holes and possibilities that need to be addressed. Again, it’s all about the what-if’s and all about asking questions instead of sticking to only what we know.

      • Yeah, that’s the point, then you are living in an imagination since you disregard the paradox I have written previously. It’s like creating a time machine and go back in time and kill your younger version of yourself. This is called the autoinfanticide or the Grandfather paradox. Of course then you can argue that we could have parallel universe, but then this renders all realities could be relative and all facts could be both true and false (which creates another paradox). Why don’t you just go all the way by saying that we are just a product of someone else’s dream? In fact, we can’t say that everytime we wake up, we actually have woken up to our reality. It could be that we still hanging on someone’s dream and so on.

      • I think you got the wrong idea, what I said was a what-if, you disproved it, simple. What I mentioned was but an example of asking what-if. I was just stating an unexplored idea that you had successfully dis-proven, that doesn’t mean you have disproved all the what-if’s.

        WHAT IF we are the product of someone else’s dreams?(another example)
        But do you understand the “what if” angle I am coming from?

      • Yes I know, that’s why I said you are living in an imagination, because you imagine things. It doesn’t have to be right or wrong since it is your imagination. That’s why you said that there would be an infinite amount of what-ifs that come up from your head and everytime you ask that, you disregard the logic or complication that are brought upon your what-ifs.

    • But the greatest discoveries and inventions started within someones imagination and they eventually became reality, one of my personal favorites is “what if we can go to the moon”…which we had eventually succeeded at all because we took the time asking ourselves that question. Again it all starts with “what if”, this little phrase allows us to learn and discover more.

      I think the rest of this points back to the logic discussion we had about god, and like I said “I don’t think we can hold what is unknown to us to our standards of logic.” Most of all, I think we can’t technically hold a god to human logic (needing the materials to build, etc etc) because if we hold god to human logic…why call him god? So the logic argument isn’t necessarily disproving god, just the notion that a human can be god.

      • Except that all that what-ifs are fulfilled through human’s logic (e.g. the ability to go to the moon). If you just believe in a hypothesis and don’t pursue for the evidence, then you are living in an imagination. Just like your argument that holds a God can’t be interpret through human logic which makes God in the same illogical state as invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster.
        If we can’t explain God through humans’ logic, it doesn’t mean that God exist. It’s the same as you can’t explain I have an invisible green dragon on my backyard who maintain the universe, thus making the green dragon exists. By Occam Razor definition, you just have to say that such definition doesn’t exist.
        And I think if you set things that God can’t be explain by logic, then how could we pursue the truth or the evidence?

  4. We didn’t accomplish those things through human logic, we accomplished them through human intelligence. Human logic changes over time like intelligence, but logic and intelligence are different. I mean, back in the 1700’s, I’m pretty sure most people would think that going to the moon would be illogical. Use of imagination leads to questioning, questioning leads to discovery, discovery leads to new logic. This is what science and discovery does, makes the illogical into something logical and at the beginning is an idea in someones imagination. The most important people in history didn’t ask “why”, they asked “why not.”

    If we can’t explain god through human logic, it doesn’t mean that he exists, but it also doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. If we could explain god through any of our known means would we really be discussing this, no, we would already have the answers. We can pursue the truth or evidence without logic, sure we can use logic, but if we rely on the logic in the pursuit, we will just find known answers. Also, just because something is illogical doesn’t mean it is absent. Would it be illogical to jump off a building for no apparent reason because that is contradictory to proper reason…but people can still do it. It’s illogical for me to put a bucket over my head and tape waffles to it, but I can do it anyway im a spontaneous person! If logic never changed and was necessary, we’d still be cavemen whose logic is simply eat, sleep, mate.

    Look, we all don’t have the exact answers. Isn’t that why you and I are having this discussion? Our way of thinking might be different, but me and you are the same in that we both want answers. I am not and never will be 100% sure in what I believe in, this why I continue looking for answers, that is why I am here, because I have a lot of what-if’s to ask, and I need people like you and Lucy to help me with those what-if’s, to prove or disprove them, then it’s back to the ol drawing board.

    • Logic is gathered from intelligence. Intelligence is gathered from knowledge. And the pursue of knowledge comes from a logical deductions. These three can’t be absent in terms of research or invention. Taking going to the moon case, first we see the moon and we wonder if we can go there.
      We have a knowledge that human can’t fly, so logically there is no way that human can go to the moon with its own strength. We have an intelligence that it would be a waste of time to do so, so we dismiss the logic of human going to the moon on its own power. Then, we gather knowledge on how we can transport human through flying transportation.
      We then gather knowledge by researching how much speed needed to go away from Earth gravitational force and assume the logic that we need somekind of a rocket propellent to achieve this speed. We then gather knowledge that man can’t survive in vacuum space which we came to a logic of making a transportation that is resistance to the vacuum space. Without the use of logic, there is no way that this knowledge can be assemble into a successful mission to the moon.
      Now, if you dismiss logic as the key to find how the universe came into existence. Then you can’t gather an informative knowledge to achieve such intelligence. Thus making your argument that God’s exist a low intelligence argument as you don’t have any knowledge to explain God.
      Thus, making it a waste of time to believe such case of how universe came into existence, the same it is a waste of time to go to the moon using man power alone.
      Now, I’m sure you will say, but that doesn’t mean that man alone can’t go to the moon. I’m sure if they develop wings and resistance to vacuum space, they will go to the moon easily. And that particular reason is why I said you are living in an imaginative world since the reality is defying your imagination.

      • I think your drifting off from my original point about logic. My point was that logic is always changing, whats illogical today may be logical tomorrow or vice-versa.

        I said logic can be used to find answers, it’s just unreliable to depend only on logic to find the answers. I didn’t dismiss logic completely, sorry if you got that impression. Just because logic isn’t involved in an argument doesn’t make it unintelligent, it makes it open to unlimited speculation, because again, we can’t hold what is unknown to us to our standards of logic. But then again, isn’t logic only what we make it out to be? Isn’t it just what the individual behind the logic sees as reasonable? I’m going to give the human race’s potential the benefit of the doubt.

      • Then in conclusion, your line of reasoning is a middle stance where you don’t want to be true or false since you will use every defying logic and knowledge to open opportunity to take stance in the unknown.
        I guess that’s a conversation breaker for us.

  5. Yup, that’s God. It’s nice these debates are always poping up though, even though they are wrong, it shows you guys are interested. :) Do some research before judging.

  6. I’m back to argue against your causality argument that I disproved last post :)

    First, you insist that there has to be a being that created God. Well, let’s look at the term “create”. According to dictionary.com, Create means “to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.” Now, let’s look at “cause”: “a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.” Here’s the key: THE PRODUCER OF AN EFFECT. An effect is a consequence, a result of some kind. Going by your argument, you’re saying that you can’t prove something caused God’s existence. But going by the definition of the fourth dimension, time ceases to exist and the words result, consequence, cause cannot apply. Why? Because all those require time as a medium. How can you create something in the fourth dimension if it supposedly existed there in the first place. Pretty much, to sum it up, you must either reject the existence of the fourth dimension, which would also reject Big Bang and Special Relativity (Big Bang because of the same argument as causality [what caused Big Bang], and Special Relativity because it defines fourth dimension), or accept that there’s a fourth dimension and can’t prove that there must be a creator of God if there’s no time factor involved. It’s like trying to say you were born in the second dimension going upwards.

    Also, like the video I showed you earlier, God can indeed create things out of thin air. Why? Because he’s in a dimension “above” us and by using the materials in that dimension, he can create things in the lower dimension. For example, let’s say you’re in a two dimensional world. When a three dimensional me dips my finger into your world, I’m creating my 2-D slices of my finger out of thin air in your dimension. By putting my finger into your dimension, am I gathering up the elements in your world and instantaneously (using free energy of course) creating my finger? No. I’m using material from the dimension above yours to create my finger in your dimension with no effort in your dimension.

    Lastly, on your argument against the Watchmaker theory, read up on Relativity of Simultaneity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity). I know it’s involved with the THEORY of Special Relativity and is far from being proven in science, but reading up on it wouldn’t harm you. According to the Relativity of Simultaneity, you can do things in the past and affect the future. For example, when you look at the train of thought experiment, to the observer standing still, the light will strike at the same time. But for the observer in the train, going nearly the speed of light, the light will come in different orders, although in reality it happened at the same time. So going by the “laws” that bind the third dimension, God can do something to us before we existed and affect us today and even the future.

    Now before I finish this argument, let me say one thing: God is a cruel God. Nowhere in the Bible did he leave sinners go unpunished or did he forgive everybody that repented. Your image of God is some guy (or a robotic unicorn who can fire lazer from its eyes; really, it’s up to you for interpretation) in the sky who’s all goody-goody to Christians and punisher of all non-believers. He will kill innocent lives and allow the deaths of those unfairly treated because it is vital to the progress of human kind. If everybody in the world was fairly treated and nobody ever died from diseases and/or mistreatment, why would we worship God in the first place if there’s heaven on Earth?

    So now I will pose you a question: do you accpet or reject the existence of “higher” dimension(s)?

    If you accept, all arguments against God can be nulled because we’ll never fully understand the workings of the higher dimension anyways.
    If you reject, I will leave this argument entirely because you have created a paradox of science disproving scientific theories.

    As my friend put it, “If God exists in the way that we define God, he requires no creation because he exists outside of reality and the space-time continuum, thus existing not before we existed but really not “existing” at all. Now, were God not to exist, then the universe would have to create itself. THAT is a paradox.”

    • Self-pawned by own argument. 4th dimension doesn’t eliminate the requirement of time. It combines an object being observed in a unique time-lane.

      “by using the materials in that dimension, he can create things in the lower dimension” -> And where does this materials come from?

      “If everybody in the world was fairly treated and nobody ever died from diseases and/or mistreatment, why would we worship God in the first place if there’s heaven on Earth?” -> I laugh so hard at this argument. You indeed confirm God is cruel.

      “Now, were God not to exist, then the universe would have to create itself.” -> An ignorant comment, nobody is saying the universe is creating itself.

      • “Self-pawned by own argument. 4th dimension doesn’t eliminate the requirement of time. It combines an object being observed in a unique time-lane.” 4th dimension DOES eliminate time as a limiting factor of the dimension. It combines time with the rest of the three dimensions we perceive here, creating a non-time-bound object. Do you understand that in the fourth dimension, you’re not limited by time? Just as we are not limited by above and below in this dimension? Since you’re not bound by time in the fourth dimension, you can “create” things in a sense that it would spontaneously form itself and had been there in the past, present, and future. Look at the graph of spacetime. Mathematically, “Dimensions are independent components of a coordinate grid needed to locate a point in a certain defined “space”. For example, on the globe the latitude and longitude are two independent coordinates which together uniquely determine a location. In spacetime, a coordinate grid that spans the 3+1 dimensions locates events (rather than just points in space), i.e. time is added as another dimension to the coordinate grid. This way the coordinates specify where and when events occur.” The key here is “where and when events occur” which isn’t limited to the past, present, and future. Just like looking at a cube in a 3-D graph (we can see all the 3-D data of the cube), a 4-D cube would show us all the data from the time it was “created”, “existed”, and “will exist”.

        “And where does this materials come from?” It was there since the beginning. Oh wait, I can’t use the word beginning because it’s not a limiting scalar quantity in the fourth dimension. The answer to that question would be, it came from everything and nothing at the same time.

        “I laugh so hard at this argument. You indeed confirm God is cruel.” Laugh all you want. I believe in a cruel God who has purpose in the world. I’m glad we can come to an understanding on that.

        “An ignorant comment, nobody is saying the universe is creating itself.” If the universe isn’t creating itself, what created the universe?

      • No, I don’t think so. Indeed, in Spacetime terms, time is relative which creates a sense that you can take observation in one unique time-plane. Or in your terms, a thing can instantenously been there without having to concern what happens before the time relative that is being observed. This is used to simplify the big bang theory but doesn’t eliminate that it might exist an event before that particular time. If you ignore this event, then we could just assume that big bang happen just like that without the need of a causality event. Things can just pop out of nowhere and there is no notion of God as the first cause in this sense.
        Your answer of “it came from everything and nothing at the same time” eliminates the necessity of God since object can just come into existence just like that. It might explain God existence, but it doesn’t make God the creator of everything since if you eliminate God, object can still manifest itself due to the limitless time boundary.
        For the God that you answered, if you believe in a cruel God, then it makes me even stronger to rebel to him. Why would I worship someone who is cruel? Because of fear? Hell no.
        “If the universe isn’t creating itself, what created the universe?”. That’s why I have said for multiple times, science hasn’t concluded things about the origins of life. However, as the video suggested, just because theory A can’t explain an X event, doesn’t mean Theory B is correct. Both theory has to be backed up with a good evidence to make it a reliable conclusion.

      • So to sum things up so that we both understand. Since time becomes a vector quantity and not a scalar quantity in the fourth dimension, things can spontaneously appear in this dimension because it had existed in the past, present, and future in the fourth dimension.

        Now my question to you is, how did things from the fourth dimension “chance” upon the third dimension?

        You say that, through causality, big bang just “happened” because it existed in the fourth dimension, but you fail to describe “how” it happened. Don’t just disprove my points; support your point that God cannot exist by giving me scientific data. Now back to the topic at hand:

        There’s no way to cross dimensions because the dimensions are superimposed upon each other. We can’t “enter” the 2-D world and magically create things in that world, mainly because it doesn’t exist (to our 3-D universe). Something unnatural must’ve created a “drift” in the fourth and third dimension (this sounds like science fiction now… I hope you can take my point seriously), crossing over the fourth dimensional objects to the third dimensional universe, permanently assigning OUR laws of physics on the object (bound by time constraint). I think this “unnatural occurrence” between the dimensions are caused by a supernatural being who is even above the fourth dimension (in a sense that he is “God”, not a being in the fifth or sixth dimension) who has the ability to manipulate the dimensions to his will (crossing them over and separating them as he pleases).

        And why do I believe in God? Not in fear, but for the hope of eternal life in heaven. Just because God is cruel doesn’t mean he’s unforgiving and relentless. He sent his son, Jesus, to show us that he’s a strict, but reasonable God who acts upon people’s faith.

        And also, you claim science is not perfect, yet. I claim God was, is, and will be perfect. In our eyes, he may look imperfect, but we have no right to judge him for that if we can’t even figure out the existence of multiple dimensions (we have theories, not laws). After all, how can we understand God if we can’t understand what kind of environment he’s in? It’ll be like trying to base off monkeys without the knowledge of jungles. Or in this case, base off big bang without the knowledge of origin of energy.

        I think we can conclude this argument now that you’ve admitted that science doesn’t know everything as of yet. You can no longer support your theories because at this point, it’s all theories. Sure, I’m basing my argument off of theories too, but only because that’s the only way to explain “God” to you so that you can visualize his existence. If I just say God exists because of the Bible, you would definitely be skeptical. To disagree any further would be futile since we’ve come at a crossroad where our interpretation of fourth dimension differs. We can’t prove that our version of the fourth dimension is correct because frankly, we don’t have scientific data.

        So I claim that God exists because he’s God and something must’ve created this world.

        You claim that God cannot exist because there’s no scientific data.

        I say you have no concrete scientific data to disprove God.

        You say that I’m in the same situation where I can’t prove God with science.

        We both look at each other and realize I was correct in my initial post.

        We can’t disprove each other no matter what.

      • Sigh, you completely ignore all my comment. All I’m saying is, if there exist a notion where something can pop up out of nothing in the 4th dimension, then we don’t need the argument that God exist. Because we know, objects can just pop out from nothing, right?
        So, it justifies how the 4th dimension “chance” upon the 3rd dimension objects. Because you don’t need a causality, things can just pop up and create itself out of thin air.
        I also said, maybe there is God, but now he is not necessary a first cause God, because other object can be existed a long time ago before him.
        Now, you suddenly change that God can be outside of dimensions and can manipulate dimensions. However, the notion that something can be created out of nothing leaves God unnecessary, since he is not a first cause God.
        “Not in fear, but for the hope of eternal life in heavens”, that’s a statement of a man that fears God, man. Because if you don’t believe him, you are scared being banished to hell.
        “You can no longer support your theories because at this point, it’s all theories”, then you end up with either you have to disprove God because you disprove science too since it is a theory, or you accept both God and science and ignore the contradictive perspective of each other.
        “I say you have no concrete scientific data to disprove God”, yeah but we are not argueing base on science all this time, right? I’m in terms with you and try to listen to your logical explanation of God eventhough all you have been spitting out doesn’t have a shred of evidence in it.
        Just like what scientific method does, you present the theory and your logical reasoning, and I will be the one who is sceptical and try to debunk your theory.

      • Oh, the irony; it seems YOU are the one not reading my comments. “So, it justifies how the 4th dimension “chance” upon the 3rd dimension objects. Because you don’t need a causality, things can just pop up and create itself out of thin air.” <- This can never happen. Fourth dimension does not just converge into the third dimension. That was my whole argument above: "There’s no way to cross dimensions because the dimensions are superimposed upon each other. We can’t “enter” the 2-D world and magically create things in that world, mainly because it doesn’t exist (to our 3-D universe). Something unnatural must’ve created a “drift” in the fourth and third dimension (this sounds like science fiction now… I hope you can take my point seriously), crossing over the fourth dimensional objects to the third dimensional universe, permanently assigning OUR laws of physics on the object (bound by time constraint). I think this “unnatural occurrence” between the dimensions are caused by a supernatural being who is even above the fourth dimension (in a sense that he is “God”, not a being in the fifth or sixth dimension) who has the ability to manipulate the dimensions to his will (crossing them over and separating them as he pleases)."

        Why? Fourth and third dimension are two totally different dimensions with no connections whatsoever other than the fact that one of them uses a scalar quantity rather than a vector quantity. Do we, in the third dimension, impose ourselves on the second dimensional world? No. We live in our third dimensional world, unable to influence the second dimension because we cannot comprehend the thought of "above and below" being a scalar quantity.

        Rather than up, down, left, right, forward, backward per time, it'll be up, down, left, right per forward and backward.

        "I also said, maybe there is God, but now he is not necessary a first cause God, because other object can be existed a long time ago before him.
        Now, you suddenly change that God can be outside of dimensions and can manipulate dimensions. However, the notion that something can be created out of nothing leaves God unnecessary, since he is not a first cause God." YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT! Why are you referencing time when there's no time? You say "existed a long time ago" mentioning time as a scalar quantity. Our concept of time, the fact that there is a past, present, and future is merely looking at time in a two dimensional way. We have to think of time as a three dimensional vector where time can curve in on itself (like an x^2 graph) and cause huge sink holes shown in the asymptotes (in a 1/x graph).

        "yeah but we are not argueing base on science all this time, right? I’m in terms with you and try to listen to your logical explanation of God eventhough all you have been spitting out doesn’t have a shred of evidence in it." Oh the irony again. You claim that I don't have any shred of evidence (which I frankly agree with), but you don't have any shred of evidence either. Causality? That's not a valid scientific argument. It's a theory based upon the idea that everything must have a origin, and even the origin must have an origin (a paradox, no?).

        Stop trying to redeem yourself. The argument is over. I didn't win, but nor did you. Stop trying to drag this out (unless if you do have some "shred of [scientific] evidence.").

      • I can see the argument you’re trying to make here, but I just wanted to let you know that you’ve degraded from quoting scientific theories to quoting philosophers.

        However, he does make some valid points. But you have to realize this. He makes the point that things other than God can create the world. However, he fails to provide evidence against God himself. He says God can be a cause, but he also says an “infinite spider” could be a God.

        This means: you still haven’t provided evidence against God’s existence.

      • Yes, that’s the dilemma of arguing something that can’t be proven. All we can do is analyze the logic behind the argument. So, at least from what we can conclude, we can bring the argument that the existence of God is doubtful from the logic itself.
        However, it is not the burden of me to prove that God does not exist, it is the burden of someone who claims that God’s exist to prove his statement. That’s why if we follow your logic of proving God existence, I could just say the universe is created from an invisible green dragon that farts rainbow from his ass. Since you can’t prove he doesn’t exist, he must be existed. I think that’s a riddiculous way to prove things out, right?

      • Are you seriously going to go on about this? Don’t you realize when you’ve lost the argument? Since you insist on continuing this, let me say this to you:

        God is not a “invisible green dragon that farts rainbow from his ass” considering that the Bible states we were made in his image (unless if you look like an invisible green dragon that farts rainbow from his ass). Trying to disprove this would be argument from ignorance (assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true)).

        “Yes, that’s the dilemma of arguing something that can’t be proven. All we can do is analyze the logic behind the argument. So, at least from what we can conclude, we can bring the argument that the existence of God is doubtful from the logic itself.” Of course God can’t be proven, but logically it makes sense that he could and should exist. If you still don’t understand why God must exist, I suggest you go back and read my argument all over again. Just because something can’t be proven, it doesn’t mean it fails to exist logically (otherwise causality, big bang, and special relativity would be “logically” wrong).

        “I think that’s a riddiculous way to prove things out, right?” You’re right! The fact that you’ve been defending your argument against God with theoretical science is quite ridiculous. I hope you open your eyes to the absolute failure of an argument you’ve presented.

        Sorry for the ad hominem. I can’t help myself considering how stupid you look straying from the original argument of “God can’t exist in this world because of causality and the watchmaker’s analogy.”

        If you’re going to respond, at least stay on topic. If you’re not going to, say that you have nothing for the original topic and then start a new topic.

      • “Trying to disprove this would be argument from ignorance (assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true))”, that’s why I brought up the invisible green dragon thing. Because you can’t disprove it by showing an evidence that’s against it, it also must be true by your way of accepting things as true. And no, Bible is not a legitimate book to prove things since no evidence ever were presented.
        “Of course God can’t be proven, but logically it makes sense that he could and should exist.”. I did read your argument and I refute it also using the logic you presented, it shows you how unnecessary God can be. You can consult the link that I gave you again on why your spacetime argument features a dilemma on its own premise.
        “You’re right! The fact that you’ve been defending your argument against God with theoretical science is quite ridiculous”. No, I was talking about how it is ridiculous to assume truth just because it can’t be proven. And by the way, no one originally was talking about theoritical science in proving God. I’m merely asserting your logic in your argument. So far, I haven’t put any theoritical science to disprove your arguments if you have been following my comments. I just use your arguments and refute it using logic since if I use theoritical science, God is by default does not exist. As I’ve been saying, I’m humoring you and put in terms with you so I can assess your God’s argument using logic consistency.
        “If you’re going to respond, at least stay on topic. If you’re not going to, say that you have nothing for the original topic and then start a new topic.” I think I’m pretty much in topic. I have followed the causality argument by demanding that God needs a cause since everything has to have a cause. However, it is you who said God doesn’t need a cause, which in fact breaking your own logic.
        Then, I’m in terms with you to agree that God doesn’t need a cause and there is a possibility that he can be forever existed. Then I refute it again by saying that if objects can have exception on causality then why only put God as an exception? That means other materials can pop out of nowhere also (such as electron, positron, and photon which can pop out of a perfect vacuum) which negate God as the first cause. It opens the possibility that these materials are the reason that God was made into existence.
        So, actually I’ve been in terms with all your exceptions in defining how God exists and presented the dilemma of your own theory.

      • If I may intercept your discussion and do my usual review so that we won’t be having a circular discussion. Here’s my understanding so far:

        Main Topic: The watchmaker analogy says a complex object (such as watch) has to have a creator and therefore all complex objects must have a cause.

        Kazasou: Launch a rebuttal questioning that if a watch has to have a designer, then the designer has to have a cause since he is also a complex object.

        John: Arguing using 4th dimension that time doesn’t bound God to have a beginning or end.John also takes an example that things can be created out of thin air by using God dipping his hand to a 2 dimension world as an example. John justifies that God is cruel and all of his doing is for the sake of the progress of human kind. John also said that God exist outside of reality and the space-time continuum. To me, this claim now has a contradictory effect of God existed in a 4th dimensional plane, because now John claims that God is outside of the dimension which now he can make things up as he please without regarding to his initial argument about the spacetime plane.

        Kazasou: Question how the material that is used from the upper dimension can come into place.

        John: Went back to the argument that God is in the 4th dimensional plane and insist that there is no requirement of beginning to confirm how God existed. John said that the material that is used by God has existed in the beginning since the spacetime plane theory confirms it. John then pose the question if the universe isn’t creating itself, what created the universe? This is of course if not the issue that is being discuss since no one is saying that universe is creating itself.

        Kazasou: Refute that the spacetime is not as simple as that. Kazasou posed a dilemmatic question as to say that you have to make sure that God exist in the very beginning. Since time is now relative, we have no way of making sure of that and thus, makes God existence to be doubtful or uncertain. Kazasou makes term by letting go this issue and pose another dilemmatic question as now if you ignore completely the first event, God is now not necessary to be the first cause since as said by John “Material can pop up out of nothing”. It opens the possibility that God can be composed of material that existed before him. Kazasou strengthen his position not to worship God, since how could you worship someone who is cruel to humans. He will not worship a God because of fear. Kazasou denies the argument that universe is creating itself, he argues that science hasn’t concluded the origins of life.

        John: Demands Kazasou to support the argument against God by giving a scientific data. This to me is out of the topic, since not both side the argument is giving scientific data so far, so demanding a scientific data for this discussion is a conversation breaker. John said that there is no way to cross dimensions because the dimensions are superimposed upon each other. John also confirms that this is why human can’t enter the 2-D world and magically create things in that world mainly because it doesn’t exist. Now John is self-refuting his own argument. It poses the question if Human can’t enter the 2-D world and magically created things, then God which exist in the 4th dimension also can’t enter humans’ 3rd dimension by following his argument. Now John came back to say God is special and out of the reality which again is a special pleading argument that self-refute all the logical premise that is being presented so far. John also said that fear is not the reason why he believe in God. John hopes for eternal life in heaven.

        Kazasou: Re-explain how God is not necessary the first cause.Kazasou says back to John his previous statement that motivates him to believe God is based on fears since if you don’t believe in him, you will be banished to hell. Kazasou also denies that he is demanding scientif data to prove God, he is in terms with John arguments as long as it is consistent. Any inconsistencies will be demanded a logical explanation.

        John: Went back to argument that 4th dimension can never cause a chance on 3rd dimension. That’s why you need a “special” force which can do “special” thing to make that happen. However this doesn’t answer the possibility that God is materialize from the material the existed from nowhere in the 4th dimension. John said that Kazasou doesn’t get what he is trying to say since there is no time anymore in the 4th dimension. However, that is not the point of the question from Kazasou. He is asking that by the definition of material can pop op from nowhere it opens the chance that this material constructed the “special” being. And this the kicker rebuttal from John ” You claim that I don’t have any shred of evidence (which I frankly agree with), but you don’t have any shred of evidence either”. Of course, that’s why Kazasou is in terms with you in coming up with all of your imaginative arguments. Kazasou is assessing the logic of your imagination and he is since the beginning did not demand any evidence to back up your claim.

        Kazasou: Gave John a link to help him re-assess his logic.

        John: Agreed that the link gave a valid point but says that it fails to provide evidence against God himself. I sigh at this because we are not talking anything about providing evidence to back up the claim.

        Kazasou: Agreeing that that is how we can do against arguments that can’t be proven. If we could present the possibility that God can’t exist then it makes God existence doubtful. Kazasou claims that it is the burden of the person who claims that God exists to prove his statements, since if anything that can’t be proven does not exist justify the existence of a thing, then we can claim God is an invisible green dragon who farts rainbow from his arse.

        John: Claims Kazasou has lost the argument. John says God is not an invisible green dragon since it contradicts the Bible. John also said trying to disprove something that can’t be proven false is an argument from ignorance. And here is also a kicker argument from John “You’re right! The fact that you’ve been defending your argument against God with theoretical science is quite ridiculous”.Am i the one who is not seeing how hypocritical John is. All this time, John is arguing God existence using spacetime theorem which by the way is a theoritical science. But when Kazasou disprove the arguments using its own theorem, John accusses Kazasou of being a failure.

        Kazasou: Explains his previous arguments all over again.

    • Yes and you seems to fail at this. In the second link, it is said that the 4th dimension combines space and time together which is contradictive to your previous statement of time is non-existant in the 4th dimension which explain God does not require a beginning or an end.

      This is your comment taken from the Causality Argument post: “In the fourth dimension, time does not exist, and therefore there can be no concept of “beginning” and “end”. Think these through before posting please.”

      • I’m sorry for your misinterpretation of my words. What I mean by “time doesn’t exist” is that time ceases to become a limiting factor in that dimension. Since you’ll have such a hard time understanding what it means not to be bound by time, I simplified it for you by saying time doesn’t exist. I’m sorry if I underestimated you. But the fact that you made this reply means you don’t understand that time, as a non-limiting scalar quantity, will not “tick-tock” in the fourth dimension.

        To put it in my terms: The time we measure and forecast in the third dimension will become nothing but complex equations in the 4th dimensional graph. This, in conjunction with the fact that time is scalar in this dimension, will cause the fourth dimension to “transcend” time in the sense that time does not govern the fourth dimension because it can be plotted definitely as a vector on a graph. That being said, the laws governing fourth dimension is unclear since the quantity we measure infinitely in the third dimension has turned definite in the fourth dimension, creating a huge paradox which we cannot solve definitely.

        To put it simply: time doesn’t exist because you can divide by zero in the fourth dimension.

      • Of course you still have time as a limiting factor. However, it is relative not absolute as I have already explained in the previous post of The Causality Argument. Indeed, you can have things or God that just come without using causality argument but you still have the task of defining a correct time-plane to explain such event.
        However, here’s the important question, if God exists in a 4th dimensional plane, then how did the 4th dimensional plane created? To make it simple, 2 dimensional (although it is only an abstract) is derived from 3 dimensional object, and 3 dimensional object is derived from 4th dimensional object. So , in conclusion, 4 dimensional object must be dreived from a higher dimensional object as well. Therefore, we have an infinite layers of dimensions thus created a infinite chain of causality and the notion that God needs the environment to live in to do his job.

      • Read my post above this. Should explain why we need “God”.

        If you want the short of it, God must exist as an intermediary between dimensions. Fourth dimension and third dimension are separate dimensions separated largely by the quantity of time. To cross one over to the other, we need an unnatural occurrence of dimensional drift where the objects in the fourth dimension becomes trapped in the third dimension, creating the beginning of the universe as we know it.

        Also, on the notion that there must be infinite layers of dimension and a “God” in each dimension, God must be above all those dimensions because he resides in “imaginary land” (so that he can manipulate the boundaries of different dimensions however he wants). It’s the only way to describe it because there’s no scientific data on a universe unbound by the laws imposed by dimensions. But then again, you can’t use my statement against me because you can’t disprove the existence of “imaginary land”.

        It sounds silly and stupid. But let me tell you this, basing all your arguments on the theory of fourth dimension like me is equally silly and stupid. We’re not physicists (not that it’s going to matter since physicists have yet to unravel the mysteries of the dimensional universes). We have no right to base off our arguments referencing things that have yet to be proven.

        All in all, this whole article is stupid. Disproving God (and disproving the disproof of God) was stupid from the first place. How would you like to see a elementary school student give a lecture on the morality of killing humans? To actual physicists, this argument is as stupid as the example I gave.

        As the people in the video told the Christian, “We can’t explain mystery with mystery.” Your causality argument is explaining “mystery with mystery”. My argument s explaining “mystery with mystery”. So let’s leave it at this.

        When science explains “mystery” with facts, I’ll be more than happy to become Atheist. Will that ever happen in my lifetime? Probably not. Therefore I’ll conclude this argument with a pleasant, thank you for your time. It’s been most excellent having a nice, long, logical argument with an Atheist with a backbone. Most of the times online, people say God doesn’t exist and fail to provide the evidence you’ve shown me. I sincerely thank you, and I hope (since it’s my obligation to the “adorable [dragon] with his green tail and big wings. He can also shoot rainbow from his arse which explains the rainbow phenomenon in our world”) that you’ll come to realize God someday. I’m not preaching, nor am I asserting. I’m just saying, I wish you the best of luck in Atheist terms.

      • Yes, it’s fun to make up things and claim it’s true, isn’t it? Of course I can’t disprove your “imaginary land” since there is no prove of it being existed. Why don’t we just go wild and say God dreamt of us and thus we are created. So we skip all the explanation on how God creates things.
        “We have no right to base off our arguments referencing things that have yet to be proven”, then why are you using something that hasn’t be proven yet or doubtful. It doesn’t make your argument of God more valid. I’m just humoring you so at least we could get a logical explanation out of your theory but certainly no logic whatsoever.
        “When science explains “mystery” with facts, I’ll be more than happy to become Atheist”. Gravity is a mystery before Newton discover a law that can explain gravity perfectly, and particles in subatomic level can be observed to pull each other. Unless the mystery you are talking about is the origins of how the universe come into existence, then I would say we are really working hard on it too.

      • Yes, it’s fun to make up things and claim it’s true, isn’t it? Of course I can’t disprove your “imaginary land” since there is no prove of it being existed. Why don’t we just go wild and say God dreamt of us and thus we are created. So we skip all the explanation on how God creates things.”

        Let me do this my way:

        Yes, it’s fun to make up things and claim it’s true, isn’t it? Of course I can’t disprove your “causality” since there is no proof that it’s even true in the first place regarding multiple dimensions. So why don’t we just go wild and say that causality governs all dimensions and thus there’s no God. So we skip all the explanation on why causality applies to the fourth dimension.

        If you believe in the fourth dimension (which seems clear from the points you’ve been making), you can’t believe in causality:

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

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

        And for the evidence of looking at the fourth dimension in terms of time being a vector quantity:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mocanu%27s_velocity_composition_paradox#Velocity_composition_paradox

        I can keep up with you all day long. You seem to be keen on pointing out my faults, but you’re ignoring your own faults. I’ve already told you multiple times that this argument cannot go on because we can’t disprove each other. Yet, you keep going with this delusion that you know everything and that I am a stupid retard who doesn’t understand your argument.

        Please, stop. You’re just making a fool out of yourself. Not only that, I’m making a fool out of myself also.

        Stop asking what came first, the chicken or the egg, because, guess what, it’s a paradox:

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

        Science creates the term paradox to describe things outside of its nature. If you’re going to continue on about causality, I’ll cease posting on here. That way, you can stay in your delusion of becoming the victor of this argument and I can go on with my life without having to deal with this stupid argument.

        You know what, actually? You won. You beat me. Oh no, God is fake and unreal. I think I’ll stop believing in him now. I’m a full athiest now. Congratulations, you managed to outdo me in a argument that was a paradox from the beginning. Great job.

      • Actually the one who are saying that something has to be created first is theists, right? I just use their argument to make sure they are consistent with their arguments. But then again, you like to do special pleading by do exception which doesn’t comprehend to the logic or evidence found.
        Science doesn’t say that everything has to have a cause. According to quantum mechanics, subatomic particles like electrons, photons, and positrons come into and go out of existence randomly (but in accord with the Heisenberg uncertainty principles). That’s why in this case, you don’t need God to explain how things work.

      • Ok. I’m going to breath a sigh of relief now that the causality argument is thrown out the window. My work here is done.

        “Science doesn’t say that everything has to have a cause.”

        You know… Because that’s what you’ve been arguing for half the time.

      • No, as I say I’m trying to make sure that your argument is consistent to the premise you have been putting out which is something has to be created or having a cause.

      • “No, as I say I’m trying to make sure that your argument is consistent to the premise you have been putting out which is something has to be created or having a cause.”

        Right back at you. You started this argument so take responsibility and show consistencies in your argument.

        Now before you start posting some crap that doesn’t have anything to do with this post, let’s have a truce. I believe you, and I’m fully aware that my argument sucks. You win. Go have a great life. I’m sure you’ll be happy by the fact that you convinced somebody online that God doesn’t exist.

      • “Right back at you. You started this argument so take responsibility and show consistencies in your argument.”. How is it that I’m not consistent? It is you who come up with “God doesn’t have a cause” and “There is no beginning nor end” things that pretty much violated the logic of Causality and the Watchmaker analogy. By the way, I’m a little bit amused that you keep admitting your own fault to justify your action. It’s like your saying “Hey, you did it. Why can’t I?”
        “I believe you, and I’m fully aware that my argument sucks.”, so what’s the point of having the argument? Are you a troll? I’m not arguing so you go into atheism. Just like you, I’m also searching for the truth. That’s why I’m having a debate over this theory. It is so that I can assert if the argument has a logical reasoning or not. I’m not arguing to convert people, just like you, I also question how we get here.
        My definition of truth is apparently different than yours. I’m the kind of guy that needs evidence to convince myself to the theory that is presented. If there is apparently no evidence, at least I can use logical reasoning, to determine the theory is worth pursuing or not.
        Take the case of going to the moon part. The theory that man can go to the moon with his own body strength is not reliable to pursue because of a high improbability.

  7. My bad. So that I don’t get killed for making a small mistake in my post, please change, “non-limiting scalar quantity” to “non-limiting vector quantity”.

    Thank you and have a nice day.

  8. hm… there’s so many text i’ve gone tired of readind so srry if ofended someone.
    let’s get to the point:

    the topic is – Proofing God Exists: The Watchmaker Analogy
    from that i will only talk about ”Proofing God Exists” which is the main point.

    When did the existence of God was recognized?
    What did the ”existence that recognized God” said?
    From 2011/2012 years back to today, how are we(we=all living things and the world itself)?

    dude, come on, the answer is very simple you wouldn’t believe it.
    ok fine, i help you:

    someone from 2011 almost 2012 said that God existed and then God existed, which means, we except for himself ”Jesus”, found God, so as simply as that can get we believe in what Jesus said/believe, so to put it much simplier then let’s say that i created bread and named it bread, and so everyone call it bread because i was that recognized and named it, which means, everyone believe in something i made.
    if you need a starting point or ”to know the hidden path” then i advise you to start with: Book.
    That’s how i started, well probably not, but as far as my memory goes that’s when i started to doubt or to try to know the truth.

    from little i’ve read it seems someone said ”the origins of life”, well i can’t answer that. i believe that to exactly know that, one must understand everything that exists or:
    you create something so you know how to create that, but do you know to create something you didn’t create?

    my email is satou@live.com.pt
    i leave to everybody that is interested, don’t have many friends, anyother that i’m forgetting
    feel free to add or pm me
    srry if souding like pulicity lol, just offering a person to talk with + searching for different types of people.

    regards btw
    Satou

    • “from that i will only talk about ”Proofing God Exists” which is the main point”. Err, actually I think you are mistaking with the word “Proving”. “Proofing” means to make something resistance so that’s why the main topic is about debunking God existence. But, that’s okay. I just want to clear things up so we don’t have misunderstanding.
      “someone from 2011 almost 2012 said that God existed and then God existed, which means, we except for himself ”Jesus”, found God, so as simply as that can get we believe in what Jesus said/believe”. Ok so in popular novel such as “Harry Potter”, J.K. Rowling found the existence of magician and the world or magic. Does this mean we have to believe magic is real?
      “let’s say that i created bread and named it bread, and so everyone call it bread because i was that recognized and named it, which means, everyone believe in something i made.”. Ah but you forget the important element of belief which is evidence. Clearly we could see that you have created a bread. There is a tangible object to which our eyes can perceive and thus makes the claim reliable. However, God existence only came from a book which has the potential of being a fiction book.

    • Or L. Ron Hubbard, a former science fiction novelist who wrote “Dianetics”, founded the religion, Scientology. He says that there exists a galactic overlord named Xenu who throws thousands of alien from a DC-9 look alike plane into the Earth volcanos and blast them with H-bomb. By your definition, this must be true since L. Ron Hubbard found and claim that his book to be true.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

  9. Err, actually I think you are mistaking with the word “Proving”. “Proofing” means to make something resistance so that’s why the main topic is about debunking God existence.
    – I’m sorry, my english is not perfect so i make mistakes from what i don’t know and assume some since it look alike.

    Ok so in popular novel such as “Harry Potter”, J.K. Rowling found the existence of magician and the world or magic. Does this mean we have to believe magic is real?
    – have? not sure if it’s the right word but i can only tell you this.
    You allready believe in magic, even tough you never saw it you probably allready imagine, wich means it exist, but what and how magic is depends on each person, you could watch a trick and think it was magic since magic involves impossible things.
    – What you understood from bread it’s up to you, don’t think there’s a need to explain, but if you want i can, tell or ask for whatever reason it may be.

    kazasou –
    if by true you mean real it is, but only for him and for those who believe in what he believes.

    • I’m sorry but I don’t believe in magic. I don’t believe in something that is not existed to be a reality. Maybe I imagine things, but that only exist in my imagination. I don’t go around telling people that my imagination is real, that’s just flat-out schizophrenic.
      If you say that reality is perceive with different views on each individual, then you are not helping the argument that God exists since now God can both exist or not depending how people wants to believe.

  10. you don’t? hm… i’m pretty sure you do. well let’s put this way, if you believe in what you see then how can you see things like color among others when imagining or dreaming?
    i didn’t said that imagining things are reality, sure imagining is only on our mind and is ”thoughts” only, but aren’t you real? are your thoughts real? or can you only consider real/reality materia or things you can see with naked eye?

    hm… not sure what to tell you about ”then you are not helping the argument that God exists since now God can both exist or not depending how people wants to believe”, but quick question:
    why there are so many diferent Gods?
    +
    Didn’t you knew that alot of people who Believe in God don’t believe the same way nor do they know all about it?

    • Eh? Why are you so sure? Are you a psychic?
      Actually, I never said that I have to see with my naked eyes to convince myself. Yes, seeing is a part of observation, but we have to also question if the theory we are presenting is consistent and try all possible refuting arguments to allow the theory to become reliable.
      “but aren’t you real? are your thoughts real?”. Yes I’m real and my thoughts are real. I can think there is an apple in this world and go looking at the supermarket to find one which makes apple a reality that exist in this world. However, when I think of God, I can’t find him anywhere or any logical explanation to convince that he exist, so God just resides in my imagination.
      “why there are so many diferent Gods?”. Because people are creative?
      “Didn’t you knew that alot of people who Believe in God don’t believe the same way nor do they know all about it?”. So you’re saying people who believe in God are just as lost as people who don’t believe in God?

      • i’m guessing or assuming, we all do to the moment check if it’s true.

        i put ”if” so i never said you were.

        no, i’m not. all i said was that they believe something they do not know entirely what it is. well, you could say that they do know all of it, but the one who created is the one who knows it all at least in stories, video games or other like it.

        btw, didn’t ask earlier. which side are you, believe or not believe that God exist?

      • “they believe something they do not know entirely what it is”. Well, I’m not big in believing something that I’m not sure about. By default, if something can’t be proven to exist, I have to say that it doesn’t exist until an evidence come up to prove it.

      • so i assume you don’t believe in God.

        but, if others believe that he exist, then which is it? does he exist? does he not exist?

      • Just because someone believes it, doesn’t mean it exist. To me, I require a good evidence to convince that God exist or as Kaza-kun said, a consistent theory that is worth to pursue that God exists.

      • ”Just because someone believes it, doesn’t mean it exist.” i told about Jesus, so this part is allready explained, and you said so yourself ”to me” wich means you are only refering to you, so doesn’t that apply to others?

        long story short: God exist for some and for others don’t.

        so, asnwer to my first riddle in this question:

        what is God?

      • hm…
        i could ask about ”he” but nah…
        so he is something you don’t believe, that means you don’t know about it, so how come you know about it, at least you know ”he” is the God..

      • No, I don’t believe in God because he doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as a God in my current understanding. Before you ask more irrelevant questions, here’s my stance in God:
        – He doesn’t exist
        – I don’t believe God exist
        – I don’t recognize God in any form of materialization
        – I don’t acknowledge God as the creator of life
        – I don’t acknowledge God causes all this universe to come into existence

      • well, since you said my questions are irrelevant then in exchange i will say this:
        i asked ”what is God?” and you gave me the answer to ”what is God to you?”

        well, i’m guessing that you are the admin of this website, or something near it, so if you feel like me stop talking then just say stop and i will stop.
        just giving my opinion to others, never hurt trying, at least most…

      • Because it’s me who is answering that’s why I said it like that. It’s up to you if you want to subscribe to my views or not.

      • well, each to it’s own i guess…

        if your the admin i don’t mind, since i get to talk with you which is something i rarelly see.

        and ty btw, for replying fast, which is something new to me. i usually get replies in a day or more.

      • That’s because I’m around at the moment. I’ll try to answer any discussion as fast as I can though since that’s the main point of creating this post.

      • yeah i know.

        since i didn’t read much from the other users, could you tell me if they talk about something diferent from ”God topic”?

        i may be lazy right now, but i’m kinda modifying my blog so ty in advance and if not ty anyway.

        i’m still going to be here sometime, so let’s chat about other thing if you would like ofc, if not then ty for the time short company.

      • Umm, you can stroll around the blog to see other topic if that’s the answer you are talking about. I’m sorry but this post is about discussing God existence. If you want to chat something different, find a post you like and post your comment relevant to the topic that the post created.

      • hm… nah pass.
        i allready gave a look to the website, and downloaded some themes for google chrome.

        well, nice knowing yah.

        God is a b………………………………………………

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s