I Have A Problem With A Question R.S. question does not make logical sense

[kobra500 1]

I was doing a mok exam for my R.S. GSCE (Religous Studies) and it was the paper from the previous year i think. Then a question came up"the amount of religion in the is proof god exists, do you agree? give reasons for both sides of this argument"So whats the problem, the problem is it is logically impossible to argue both sidesWhy? : Proof means something that establishes something a true or factual beyond all arguable doubt.So if i were to argue that it is proof for why God exists, which i wouldnt because it isnt, for me to argue that it isnt proof would make the other side wrong because you've just said you've prooved something and to argue another side would proove you havnt proved it therefore, the question is wrong!

[serverph 0]

as i analyze the question, it just wants you to point out the arguments from both sides... and then decide which side you agree with. not that it imposes on you to argue both sides, just to pick one on which you lean on the more. :)on a much more general sense, i would argue that logic and religion doesn't seem to go well together. it's more on faith, rather than logic when it comes to religion.

[kobra500 1]

Yeah well im athiest but i have nothing against religion just as long as its not shoved down my throat, I hate it when people try and change your view on god, they think their doing you a favour "saving you" but all they do is annoy you, i dont try and make anyone athiest if you see what i mean... plus there are too many problems i have with religion like sexism and homophobia which means i cant morrally believe in it, plus ive always been pesimistic. I know what its asking all im saying is to argue one side is proof would be to deny the other.

[truefusion 3]

"the amount of religions in the [world] is proof god exists, do you agree? give reasons for both sides of this argument"
So whats the problem, the problem is it is logically impossible to argue both sides

Why? : Proof means something that establishes something a true or factual beyond all arguable doubt.

Quick question: why are you making it appear harder than what it really is? You say it's impossible to argue for both sides, but people do it all the time. All you have to do is give reasons for both sides. No theist that believes their religion to be true would accept things that is contradictory to their faith, and no atheist will agree that the amount of religions in the world is proof for God's existence. There is nothing contradictory about those two. Just refrain from stating misconceptions or assumptions (e.g. sexism, homophobia, logic and religion don't mix, etc), and you should be fine.

[BuffaloHelp 24]

"the amount of religion in the is proof god exists, do you agree? give reasons for both sides of this argument"

This reminds me of arguments I used to have with my parents (as I'm sure you all had similar arguments):

me: Why can't I go to my friend's party late at night?
parent: Because...
me: Because, what and why?
parent: Because I said so. End of conversation.

Just because number of religions increased it does not prove that god(s) exist. What about a religion that worships aliens from another planet? Due to increasing Extra Terrestrial believers does that mean aliens from another planet all of sudden exist? Do aliens' existence from another planet solely depend on our ability to believe them in the first place to form a dedicated religion? Then perhaps it's sad that this so called Great Beings cannot exist without our initiation of forming a belief system on behalf of them

But on the other hand, two complete strangers cannot have similar concept and belief of a supernatural being. That is to say, a person from California and a person from New York could not believe in a same benevolent being when these two never met each other. Therefore this benevolent being must be true since two or more unrelated witnesses are claiming that this being exists. When similar eyewitnesses come together and share each other's testimony on said day after day, isn't this called religion? So then because a benevolent being exists there are followers, naturally. And because there are followers there must be a being that these followers believe.

I hope I could have helped to present both sides of arguments.

[kobra500 1]

It's not i dont believe in God, its just i choose not to waste my life believing in something which to me at least doesn't make logical sense. Going to church wont make me happy, only bored, praying wont make me happy, just make me sad because of the things im praying for will be sad. At the end of the day if God is all loving and omnipotent then me believing wont bother him too much and it's not like im a bad person, I just live my life day by day, i dont fear death and dont believe in the after life. "Life sucks and then you die" I just dont want my life to suck.BTW i answered the question right, i just said the logistics of it... I got an A in the paper. I dindnt mean to start a big debate of God, though im impressed... this is my first post opaque has answered unless its a support post i mean!

[gaspe86 0]

This reminds me of arguments I used to have with my parents (as I'm sure you all had similar arguments):
me: Why can't I go to my friend's party late at night?
parent: Because...
me: Because, what and why?
parent: Because I said so. End of conversation.

Just because number of religions increased it does not prove that god(s) exist. What about a religion that worships aliens from another planet? Due to increasing Extra Terrestrial believers does that mean aliens from another planet all of sudden exist? Do aliens' existence from another planet solely depend on our ability to believe them in the first place to form a dedicated religion? Then perhaps it's sad that this so called Great Beings cannot exist without our initiation of forming a belief system on behalf of them

But on the other hand, two complete strangers cannot have similar concept and belief of a supernatural being. That is to say, a person from California and a person from New York could not believe in a same benevolent being when these two never met each other. Therefore this benevolent being must be true since two or more unrelated witnesses are claiming that this being exists. When similar eyewitnesses come together and share each other's testimony on said day after day, isn't this called religion? So then because a benevolent being exists there are followers, naturally. And because there are followers there must be a being that these followers believe.

I hope I could have helped to present both sides of arguments.

Kobra, as you can see, our friend BuffaloHelp just pointed out how such question would be answered correctly. The question itself it is not asking whether you agree or not, or whether you are in favor of both sides of the question. It simply asks to point out posible arguements for both sides from a neutral point of view.

BuffaloHelp, about the parents counter-arguement... its always the same one

[truefusion 3]

BTW i answered the question right, i just said the logistics of it... I got an A in the paper.

I don't think the word "logistics" fits, but if you did not want help in the matter, please say so in the starting post.

[KansukeKojima 0]

Going to church wont make me happy, only bored, praying wont make me happy, just make me sad because of the things im praying for will be sad. At the end of the day if God is all loving and omnipotent then me believing wont bother him too much and it's not like im a bad person, I just live my life day by day, i dont fear death and dont believe in the after life. "Life sucks and then you die" I just dont want my life to suck.

Going to Church and praying is boring to you because you have no reason to do so.
And you say praying makes you sad? Who says you have to pray about sad things all the time?

[joeblogg 0]

lol that question is funny. i get your point that by trying to prove the other side is saying that the other side which you also argued on wasn't true lol. maybe they ment brainstorm ideas for both sides and then try and prove the side you believe in. but yeah funny question.

[hamza12 0]

I was doing a mok exam for my R.S. GSCE (Religous Studies) and it was the paper from the previous year i think. Then a question came up
"the amount of religion in the is proof god exists, do you agree? give reasons for both sides of this argument"

So whats the problem, the problem is it is logically impossible to argue both sides

Why? : Proof means something that establishes something a true or factual beyond all arguable doubt.

So if i were to argue that it is proof for why God exists, which i wouldnt because it isnt, for me to argue that it isnt proof would make the other side wrong because you've just said you've prooved something and to argue another side would proove you havnt proved it therefore, the question is wrong!

That's a funny question. When you come to think of it, it actually doesn't make any sense at all because you can't prove something on both sides. It's like a lawyer arguing for both sides of the murder case. lol! But it just means show arguments on both sides of the issue and state which side is stronger.

That's all =]