<p>All i can say is im not going to He L L and maharani either</p>
<p>The debate over God cannot be won by either side due its framework; essentially, it's subjective. If you get the chance (I know that I will), take a few Philosophy classes in college. There are a few logical theorems which actually prove the existence of God.</p>
<p>I am not sure that there are ways to prove that god exists. There might be some explainations about the existance of god that may make make more sense to us. However, we will never prove them in this lifetime. But I beleive God does exist. If you get into the right college with low stats, it does not prove or disprove the existance of god.</p>
<p>y'all better believe theres a god.. aprils right around the corner. god might be snooping around this forum and he has been known to change admission decisions in the last minute.</p>
<p>Randomtask2005, you make absolutley no sense what so ever.</p>
<p>"1 ok um if you are citizen, you declare allegance to a country. If you change God to country, it can be derived as "there is only 1 true government of the united stantes."</p>
<p>You treat the government like God, isn't that a little pathetic? BTW you entire premise is wrong, there is no link between what you say here and my post.</p>
<p>"2 You can not burn the flag, as it is anti-country. Akin to making a new god, because it is going against God, hence anti-God."
See the above. </p>
<p>"3 this isn't always true of the U.S. , but has happened in times of war. Anti-government movements were suppressed BY LAW. Alien and Sedition acts ring a bell? or some law that i dont know the name of made in world war 2"</p>
<p>Alien and Sedition ACts were thrown act very quickly (because they were unconstitutional), but if there were more people like you I wouldn't be surprised if we still had them. </p>
<p>"4 there is a reason a week isnt 5 days."
It does have som relation to the original abrahamic superstitions, but 7 days is perfectly fine, 7*52 is about what a year is anyway so it actually makes sense.</p>
<p>"5 the unwritten law of respecting those of higher positioin in society and what-not"
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! </p>
<p>"6 obviously the death penalty is used because the prisoners violated teh constitutional rights of others, which include the right to life. Therefore they do not follow the constitution and therefore"</p>
<p>I actually agree witht the ten commandments, there is no reason to kil other than self defense. The death penalty is wrong because it kills even though the person is locked away and no risk to society anymore.
7. this document was written when there was no such thing as divorce</p>
<p>"8. the government does not steal. Stealing means taking without any sort of compensation of any kind. obviously this isn't true or there would be a revolt by the people like every other communist country."</p>
<p>Taking money from one class and giving it to the other class is not stealing? Are you a Socialist?</p>
<p>"9. this is the search for truth, not deciding wether or not oyu should do it. It is the individual's perrogative to lie. The document was intended for the truth to be revealed."
No the "document" was inteded to make sheep out of people. </p>
<p>"10. what are you talking about. Capitalism is a barter based economy with a common monetary source. you trade x amount of bills for this product. YOu dont just take the product."</p>
<p>Covet does not mean steal, thefore you entire argument is flawed. In Capitalism for there to be trade one MUST covet anothers good, if he doesn't then why the hell would he trade for it anyway.</p>
<p>It is like I am arguing with a 5 year old.</p>
<p>Claridge, please post any logical idea theorem that says God exists, I have seen many of them and they are ALL based on flase assumptions. Ideas like the world is too complex for there not to be a God, and that there had to be a first action and that God was the one that made the first actions. That is probably the same thing you are talking about and they are all based on bad assumptions and they are all WRONG.</p>
<p>Sohrab,</p>
<p>Well you've dealt with that whole god thingy handily; now, can you lay to rest all this brouhaha about the big bang and the expanding universe? If you have the time, maybe the cure for cancer or halitosis...or, if you are a little pressed for your verdict on far too many of the great questions that have plagued mankind for thousands of years (its good to know someone's finally come up with the answers), how about a cure for being a pompous-ass...or, wait, obviously you havent found a cure for that one yet.</p>
<p>Don't wrorry you will be the first one I call when I find the cure for idiocy.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.iidb.org%5B/url%5D">www.iidb.org</a></p>
<p>if you love religious and secular debating...</p>
<p>Here's hoping you (or someone who loves and cares about you) finds it.</p>
<p>As to the cure for those who think all the greatest minds of the world (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstien, Kant, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Bohr, Flew, etc.) couldn't figure out what you simply deduced in high school, that would be a true gift to mankind...which you seem to beleve you already are. </p>
<p>The world is intellectually safer with you in it, I'm sure.</p>
<p>well gosh if the people before me didn't do it that means I can't do it either. </p>
<p>Ever heard of progress?</p>
<p>BTW Einstein did not believe in God. Some of the others probably didn't either.</p>
<p>DRU2K, I am a member there and I encourage anyone who enjoys discussing these challegning themselves by listening to other ideas (whether you are relgious or not) to come and discuss what you think. There are some very intelligent people at that board.</p>
<p>Oh man Sohrab you better hope your f***ing right. Most people i know dont believe in God only because of some tragedy that has befallen them (i.e. my friend has a brother with an extremely rare disease and he is in a vegetated state almost and can't move his body.)</p>
<p>Has something happened to you Sohrab that makes you feel so strongly about this? Are YOU in a vegetated state?</p>
<p>Ever heard of progress?</p>
<p>YOU are the biggest IDIOT I have ever seen on CC. Do YOU really think that just because time passes, even though its still a mystery, YOU can just say, oh well hey since the others couldnt find out then well golly gee im a smart fella im gonna tell them the "truth"</p>
<p>It is like I am arguing with a 5 year old.</p>
<p>EXACTLY, AND THE FIVE YEAR OLD NEVER LISTENS TO HIS MOMMY DOES HE.</p>
<p>...Yeah, good luck on your college career stealth! MY friend is in the same situation as you, she only got accepted to UCSCS and her boyfriend is at UCLA. She's considering CCing for two years and transfering to UCLA or a UC near there, as she doesn't want to impose a "distance" problem on her relationship. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but maybe you should give it some consideration.</p>
<p>Sohrab: It's interesting how you and many other Atheists disagree with billions of people who have lived/live on this planet and have believed/believe in the existence of God. I highly doubt that all of those billions of people (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims) are all wrong in their belief about God's existence. If you think about it, each human being is like smaller than a grain of sand in comparison to the universe. Aren't you amazed by the size of the universe alone and the idea that the universe couldn't have appeared out of nowhere?</p>
<p>Nevertheless, there are many logical arguments (not based on religion) that prove that God exists. Take into consideration that the individuals who derived these proofs discussed and argued amongst themselves for hundreds and in some cases, thousands of years, about the validity and logic behind their claims. None of these individuals were high school students, like yourself.</p>
<p>The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(2.1) Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
(2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(2.12) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.13) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.2) Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
(2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
(2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
(2.23) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.</p>
<p>Thomas Aquinas: Arguments for God's Existence:</p>
<p>It seems that God does not exist, for if one of two contrary things were infinite, its opposite would be completely destroyed. By "God," however, we mean some infinite good. Therefore, if God existed evil would not. Evil does exist in the world, however. Therefore God does not exist.</p>
<p>Furthermore, one should not needlessly multiply elements in an explanation. It seems that we can account for everything we see in this world on the assumption that God does not exist. All natural effects can be traced to natural causes, and all contrived effects can be traced to human reason and will. Thus there is no need to suppose that God exists.</p>
<p>But on the contrary God says, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14).</p>
<p>Response: It must be said that God's existence can be proved in five ways. The first and most obvious way is based on the existence of motion. It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved. Everything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it. A thing moves something else insofar as it actually exists, for to move something is simply to actualize what is potentially within that thing. Something can be led thus from potentiality to actuality only by something else which is already actualized. For example, a fire, which is actually hot, causes the change or motion whereby wood, which is potentially hot, becomes actually hot. Now it is impossible that something should be potentially and actually the same thing at the same time, although it could be potentially and actually different things. For example, what is actually hot cannot at the same moment be actually cold, although it can be actually hot and potentially cold. Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover. For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."</p>
<p>The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow. Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence. If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case. Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."</p>
<p>The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time. If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."</p>
<p>The fourth way is based on the gradations found in things. We find that things are more or less good, true, noble, etc.; yet when we apply terms like "more" and "less" to things we imply that they are closer to or farther from some maximum. For example, a thing is said to be hotter than something else because it comes closer to that which is hottest. Therefore something exists which is truest, greatest, noblest, and consequently most fully in being; for, as Aristotle says, the truest things are most fully in being. That which is considered greatest in any genus is the cause of everything is that genus, just as fire, the hottest thing, is the cause of all hot things, as Aristotle says. Thus there is something which is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection in all things, and we call that something "God."</p>
<p>The fifth way is based on the governance of things. We see that some things lacking cognition, such as natural bodies, work toward an end, as is seen from the fact hat they always (or at least usually) act the same way and not accidentally, but by design. Things without knowledge tend toward a goal, however, only if they are guided in that direction by some knowing, understanding being, as is the case with an arrow and archer. Therefore, there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things are ordered to their end, and we call this being "God."</p>
<p>To the first argument, therefore, it must be said that, as Augustine remarks, "since God is the supreme good he would permit no evil in his works unless he were so omnipotent and good that he could produce good even out of evil."</p>
<p>To the second, it must be said that, since nature works according to a determined end through the direction of some superior agent, whatever is done by nature must be traced back to God as its first cause. in the same way, those things which are done intentionally must be traced back to a higher cause which is neither reason nor human will, for these can change and cease to exist and, as we have seen, all such things must be traced back to some first principle which is unchangeable and necessary, as has been shown.</p>
<p>Anselm's Argument: <a href="http://www.braungardt.com/Theology/Proofs%20of%20God/ontological_arguments_for_the_ex.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.braungardt.com/Theology/Proofs%20of%20God/ontological_arguments_for_the_ex.htm</a></p>
<p>So in conclusion, there are many other proofs that God exists, including one by Rene Descartes. If you don't come to understand of God's existence through the arguments I presented, feel free to PM me and I can give you a dozen more arguments. In any case, take a Philosophy class in college, and the professors will, without a doubt, prove to you that God exists.</p>
<p>"Has something happened to you Sohrab that makes you feel so strongly about this? Are YOU in a vegetated state?"</p>
<p>No but I get the feeling I am talking to vegtables in this thread. I have not had any catastrophes in my life, but the guy has the right idea. If God exists, he doesn't give a **** about your friend's brother, but I think your friend's bro just had a run with bad luck. </p>
<hr>
<p>I hope college profs have more convincing arguments than this or else I will be wasting a lot of tuition money. None of what you presented is proof.</p>
<p>"The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(2.1) Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
(2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(2.12) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.13) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.2) Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
(2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
(2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
(2.23) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence."</p>
<p>That does not prove the existence of God, in fact, saying that everything needs a cause implies that even God would have a cause, and what type of a God is created by anything, but oh I forgot God isn't bound by that logic is he? How conveniant. Furthermore, requiring that everything needs a cause would lead one to believe that is it possible that there is NO beginning since whatever caused the beginning would have to have a cause by itself.</p>
<p>So Kalam says that infinite is absurd (that is an assumption I would like you to prove), but an infinite God is not absurd? That is a contradiction if I ever saw one. </p>
<p>That doesn't even mention the fact that EVEN IF the universe has to have a point as a beginning (another assumption you should try to prove) that the cause must have been God. That does not make sense. Most of these God "proofs" start off with the existence of God as a certainty then work their way back. </p>
<p>Thomas Aquinas' explantation is a word salad. It has the same premise as Kalam but it has more assumptions.</p>
<p>PS BTW these arguments were made ignorant of Quantum Mechanics. </p>
<p>PPS even the website you showed about Anselm's argument say: "Obviously Anselm thought this argument was valid and persuasive, and it still has occasional defenders, but many, perhaps most, contemporary philosophers believe that the ontological argument, at least as Anselm articulated it, does not stand up to strict logical scrutiny." Anselm's argument is a pile of steaming BS. You will not find ANY philosophy professor arguing that is makes sense. It doesn't and if you think it does then you have bigger problems. </p>
<p>For those who don't know what Anselm's argument is here is a summary. </p>
<pre><code>1) Someone has a concept of the greatest conceivable being, which they call God.
2) This concept of God as the greatest conceivable being exists only in his or her mind.
St. Anselm says that these two propositions contradict each other because for both 1 and 2 to be true, the following must also be true:
A) It is possible to have an idea of the greatest conceivable being.
B) And that this most perfect conceivable being is just imaginary.
</code></pre>
<p>Therefore God exists. [lol]</p>
<p>If that doesn't make sense to you then something is working perfectly fine in your brain. Like I said, Anselm's "proof" (lol at the word "proof") is a pile of steaming bull crap.</p>
<p>DAMN would everyone hush about the whole religious debate. No one's going to change someone else's beliefs and opinions anyways so why even bother! <em>Plus this site is meant to discuss college admissions</em></p>
<p>yeah guys. iidb.org rocks. i swear you will not find a larger group of rational and intellectual individuals than at that site.</p>
<p>i heard csu long beach is a beautiful school to attend to......
but i hope you can get in uc davis</p>
<p>"It's interesting how you and many other Atheists disagree with billions of people who have lived/live on this planet and have believed/believe in the existence of God. I highly doubt that all of those billions of people (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims) are all wrong in their belief about God's existence."</p>
<p>They were wrong about storms, earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters being caused by a god.</p>
<p>You know, they also all believed that the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth.</p>
<p>Those religions have as their center, a religious text that is riddled with contradictions and do nothing except cause strife.</p>
<p>Maybe a god does exist (though I don't believe it). Even if one does, it's certainly not THAT god.</p>
<p>coolman25: Science and religion are two separate subjects. Regardless of whether people in the past considered natural disasters or other scientific phenomena to be the occurences of God, billions of people living in the world in modern times believe in God.</p>
<p>It doesn't matter whether those religions have "religious texts riddled with contradictions" - all those people who wrote those texts are human, they aren't God; therefore, they aren't perfect. Mind you, those religious texts certainly aren't meant to be taken literally and word-for-word.</p>