So, i got into an argument with a fellow about God and his existence. And i asked him to give me an logical, rational reason that God exists.
He said "The simple fact that i need to have a reason, that our discussion has a purpose".
So i asked him to elaborate and he basically said: "Our discussion would have no purpose if god wont exist, our discussion purpose its life, this is what we want from this discussion, this is what we want this disscussion to teach us, to have life. If God wont exist (the eternal life), our discussion wont serve a purpose, because everything we would do, we will get to DEAD. But the purpose is life ( life afterlife, eternal life), who gives eternal life? God, therfore God HAS TO EXIST".
HOW DO I RESPOND TO HIS?? btw sorry for my english
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
His elaborate answer was this: "For truth to exist, there has to exist someting that is not true, like saying: for something blue to exist, there most exist something that is not blue. If not, it wouldnt make any sense to say that something its blue.Why we need to have truth as the purpose, and not the untruth/not true? Not because we see that that thing its doing good to us?Ex: why u say smoking its bad? But now the big problem comes.. what does it trully mean to exist? because the faithfull people say that a true living with God its beyond Dead. For christians, that its heaven, so, good for them its that truth, which help you get to that place. For materialistic people, those who belive that this is all the life we have, the good is that, that help them live a longer life. so which one is right? if you take materialistic people, why is their concept not good about life? Because in their conception, every life its sorted to dead, the only chance of a materialistc guy to live its to pass his genes. so the purpose of our discussion it not the truth, its dead, it has no purpose you could say. But if you take christians, where life its eternal, THEN to obtain that eternal life you must follow the path=> our purpose its the truth - truth exists - truth its necesary - the usefull things are good -good thing give life -our purpose its life - this discussion has a meaning. Who gives eternal life? GOD. 1+1=2 - God is necesairy to exist.
Great. Now prove that the thing you say is the reason that we can have an intelligent conversation EXISTS
"HOW DO I RESPOND TO HIS?? "
Start by pointing out that his position tells us nothing about whether his belief is true. That believing something just because it makes you feel good is absurd, and may be pernicious. He's ring fencing his belief from all comment, never mind criticism, because he subjectively feels his life would be meaningless without an afterlife myth. I'd argue that such beliefs devalue this life, and motivate people to treat it as cheap. Also lets suppose he's right about an afterlife, given the number of religions and variations of the same the odds are he's still going to fail to get into an afterlife.
Besides who'd really want to spend eternity with people who'd blindly guessed their way into it, or got there by their indiscriminate murder of infidels, or simply doggedly and blindly adhered to a childhood indoctrination?
Most of all I'd encourage him to read his religions religious book thoroughly and with an open mind, it's hard to imagine anyone retaining belief after such an objective reading of the bible or the koran.
thanks, dude i was thinking of something the same, but english is not my primary language and i didnt know how to put it in words. Thanks agian!!
His statements prove Krishna exists? Ask him which god his sense of purpose proves. Then disagree and prove a different god using the same logic.
I love this argument... the "now substitute the spaghetti monster, or universe creating unicorns and see if the argument is equally valid"
You might notice that he assumes the supernatural/magic exists (by saying human life is eternal); then comes to the conclusions that the supernatural exists (god). This looks like a somewhat diluted form of begging to question to me.