Does God exist?
Question: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?"
Answer: The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
A fifth argument is that sometimes evil persons turn from their wicked ways and become good loving caring people
What do you think?
Love
Alan
Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.
Search found 14 matches
November 21st, 2011, 6:14 am
November 23rd, 2011, 2:32 pm
Xris wrote:Alan do you believe the evidence? If so do you think he is benevolent? Why, might I ask, is he so elusive to cause us to question his existence?
Desire to find god or want him to exist is the driving ambition of the faithful. To imaging we are alone with no figure of refuge or no higher power to rely on is a fear all men have experienced. Yes you are correct in stating god needs to be created by man. He is essential for the vast majority of humanity. I Believed that god existed but the doubts became so unbearable I had to accept the truth of his illusion. Once it became clear it was a desire rather than the truth I became free. freer than I had ever been. God is a burden, a mirage that stops man from examining himself and the truth.
So no Alan your evidence is based on need rather than good judgement.Thanks xris
Hi xris I recently (August 2011) had a total heart block episode, where I was rushed to hospital and my heart stopped completely for minutes at a time. I went through the whole gambit of my heart being shocked over and over again in a desperate effort to get it to begin beating again. They pumped in adrenalin, atropine also to try and get it going again. Each time my heart stopped my consciousness left my body and I went into another dimension of living.I flat lined for minutes at a time and during these brief minutes when my heart was not beating my consciousness went into an afterlife realm where I lived out a lifetime. Thus a minute on the resuscitation table when my heart was not beating time expanding into countless years, while on the other side of life. It was not an hallucination because hallucinations are fragmented and confusing and make no sense and deeply disturb the person having one
I saw my things including a being of light that kindly spoke to me, I took this to be God because of the great love I felt while there. I now have a heart pacemaker installed to keep my heart from going into another crises of stop/starting.
"I thus base my belief on actual experience" I would say from this experience that God is benevolent but allows evil to exist so that there are always opposites so that we can choose from good or evil out of the free will we have been given by God. We must account to a higher power for what we have done or not done during this mortal life in the earthly plane of existence, after we die.
If this life which is but a quantum flask in eternity is all we get then the universe, God or destiny are playing a cruel joke on each of us
November 30th, 2011, 5:42 am
Xris wrote:There are many scenarios we could speculate on. Part of very advanced computer game or just a very delusional dream where reality awaits us on waking from this life. A natural system of life and death with no indication of god. A pause in greater game where this life is just a insignificant interlude. If you can find evidence for any of them, they are relevant. But just as there is none for our accepted description of god there is no reason to believe we are part of an elaborate movie written by god. I do believe the future can be revealed but that does not indicate we have no part in writting that future.
Hi xris and others really great debate going on, my I add a little essay I wrote around the s78ubject some time ago?
A letter to an atheist by Alan McDougall
Is there a reason for living that goes beyond that of our earthly mortal life on earth? I say there is, how you can be so sure that there beyond life. Why not just try to consider that there just might be a god. Life after death is unfortunately something neither I nor someone else can ever prove to
I, however, strongly believe we continue to exist in some form or other in dimensions of purpose, reason, beauty and that our consciousness continues to exist eternally after death. Otherwise our earthly fleeting life is nothing but a cruel joke of nature
Have you ever thought that to be an absolute atheist takes more faith and is more difficult to rationalize than one like me who believes there is a creator? How could nothing evolve from nothing and become everything?
This logic demand that dark nothing morphed into everything, nothing created energy time matter and finally life out of inanimate energy. I see this as a ridiculous assumption; I am left to believe that all existence including mysterious life evolved without reason or purpose. Do you really believe this as a fact?
Let us consider, what life is, how could the unimaginable almost infinitely complex molecule DNA of life came into existence so quickly in relation to cosmological time. Life existed on the primordial earth just a moment after its creation, again in cosmological time?
The universe is unimaginable complex and sustains itself by exact precise fundamental constants, if this harmony differed in the infinitesimal fraction we would simply not exist; indeed the earth itself would not exist.
A billion trillion googolplex monkeys typing for eternity would not produce even one of Shakespeare sonnets. Another analogy, if we took a billion airplanes, filled them with water, concrete and bricks and dumped the whole continuously on the earth for a billion years, would it magically and randomly form the beautiful Taj Mahal or the Sydney Opera house? But you insist I must accept the beautiful universe a of unimaginable precision came into existence this illogical way
When life needs to evolve due to changing circumstances, does it tell itself to alter its own DNA for the new conditions or could there be a watch maker resetting the watch
I see god adjusting the DNA overlooking his own experiment if you like, thus controlled evolution by an intelligent designer!
Our breathtaking beautiful is expanding and anything that expands must have a beginning. Can you prove there is no god of course you can’t, can I of course I can’t, but at least I can offer circumstantial evidence... Atheism is a faith belief system just like anything that requires belief without evidence.
As an amateur astronomer leaves me with an unshakable belief that am awesome intellect created the universe and everything else in existence.
Look out the sparking water that quenches your thirst, the fruit that feeds you, and invigorated your body. There is beauty everywhere and you must search for real ugliness. Go outside on a moonless night and reflect on the wonder of the cosmos that sparkles above you. the great snow capped mountains and streams, the blue sky and the rise of the sun at dawn and its golden glow as it sets. In the early morning go and listen to the sounds of nature, birds chirping like tiny electrons in the mind of god. The wind that you breathe the precious nourishment supplied by mother earth.
Then explain to me how chance can bring this all about. To me there is a wonderful creative behind all this glory if only we would look at it.
Like all things the universe has a beginning and this demands a creator, for nothing can exist with a prime cause. The universe will end but for that we will just have to wait
Even atheism scientists say our universe is precise, ordered with beautiful mathematical constants. One great astronomer said the universe was less like a great well oiled machine and more like a beautiful ongoing thought
I believe in God, what you believe is your right but to me a godless universe is bleak and cold
What do you people believe, No god or God
Alan McDougall 24/6/2008
November 30th, 2011, 9:56 pm
Hi Eric,
Heck you took time to try to change me into (what appears) to me to be a very Angry atheist hater of God like you but gladly very unsuccessfully. You make assumptions that I am highly religious and belong to some weirdo fundamental sect, of which I am not? But I take my hat off to you you are a very competent Philosopher and I am sure you could easily put up a sound argument for the existence of God (Supreme being) If you wanted to. I find comfort believing in a God and a continuation of life beyond this mortal plane. My dear younger sister is dying of cancer and the only thing keeping going is her firm faith in a loving God.
God gave us a free will and let us each develop our own characters, thus some become Hitler and some Mother Teressa, Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi There is evil both in nature and in man because God allows for existence to be a duality of things, thus there is black and white, dark and light, good and evil, positive and negative, war and peace and so on and so on.
By the way what I experiences with my recent near death event was not my brain playing tricks on me due to oxygen deprivation or any other neurological reason but a profound,deep meaningful, protracted and beautiful experience in some other dimension of existence, indeed I believe one can be an atheist and still hope for a life after earthly death
I said science has stated over and over again that before the big bang there was nothing, thus from nothingness everything came according to most scientists and cosmologist but thankfully not all.
Do you believe that matter energy and space are eternal, infinite that simply had no prime mover or cause? Yes? or No?
By the way I am not the silly ignoramus you paint me as, but well educated in the sciences, especially in cosmology and comparative religious thought
I put in briefly Thomas Aquinas five proof of Gods existence for those who have not read them before
St. Thomas Aquinas was the greatest medieval philosopher. He tried to show the harmony between faith and reason, and between Christianity and philosophy. Aquinas's views have been very influential, especially in Catholic thought.
1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.
2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.
3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.
Aquinas's Proofs 4 and 5
4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.
5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "necessary being" (a being that has to exist) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - God by definition has all positive attributes. But existence is a positive attribute. So God exists by definition -- and of necessity.
{ 2 } - Only a being that exists of necessity could be a suitable object of worship.
{ 3 } - Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being.
Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "first cause" (something that causes other things to exist but that isn't itself caused to exist by anything else) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - There is a second cause, and so there must be a first cause.
{ 2 } - "X causes Y" only means that things like X are followed in our experience by things like Y.
{ 3 } - Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause.
{ 4 } - Causality is only a category that the mind uses to put together the raw data of sensation.
A near death experience of Pam Reynolds below
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =104397005
Reynolds' journey began one hot August day in 1991.
"I was in Virginia Beach, Va., with my husband," she recalls. "We were promoting a new record. And I inexplicably forgot how to talk. I've got a big mouth. I never forget how to talk."
An MRI revealed an aneurysm on her brain stem. It was already leaking, a ticking time bomb. Her doctor in Atlanta said her best hope was a young brain surgeon at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Arizona named Robert Spetzler.
"The aneurysm was very large, which meant the risk of rupture was also very large," Spetzler says. "And it was in a location where the only way to really give her the very best odds of fixing it required what we call 'cardiac standstill.' "
It was a daring operation: Chilling her body, draining the blood out of her head like oil from a car engine, snipping the aneurysm and then bringing her back from the edge of death.
"She is as deeply comatose as you can be and still be alive," Spetzler observes.
When the operation began, the surgeons taped shut Reynolds' eyes and put molded speakers in her ears. The ear speakers, which made clicking sounds as loud as a jet plane taking off, allowed the surgeons to measure her brain stem activity and let them know when they could drain her blood.
"I was lying there on the gurney minding my own business, seriously unconscious, when I started to hear a noise," Reynolds recalls. "It was a natural D, and as the sound continued — I don't know how to explain this, other than to go ahead and say it — I popped up out the top of my head."
Dying In A Brain Scanner, Sort Of
A Tunnel And Bright Light
She says she found herself looking down at the operating table. She says she could see 20 people around the table and hear what sounded like a dentist's drill. She looked at the instrument in the surgeon's hand.
"It was an odd-looking thing," she says. "It looked like the handle on my electric toothbrush."
Reynolds observed the Midas Rex bone saw the surgeons used to cut open her head, the drill bits, and the case, which looked like the one where her father kept his socket wrenches. Then she noticed a surgeon at her left groin.
"I heard a female voice say, 'Her arteries are too small.' And Dr. Spetzler — I think it was him — said, 'Use the other side,' " Reynolds says.
Soon after, the surgeons began to lower her body temperature to 60 degrees. It was about that time that Reynolds believes she noticed a tunnel and bright light. She eventually flat-lined completely, and the surgeons drained the blood out of her head.
During her near-death experience, she says she chatted with her dead grandmother and uncle, who escorted her back to the operating room. She says as they looked down on her body, she could hear the Eagles' song "Hotel California" playing in the operating room as the doctors restarted her heart. She says her body looked like a train wreck, and she said she didn't want to return.
"My uncle pushed me," she says, laughing. "And when I hit the body, the line in the song was, 'You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.' And I opened my eyes and I said, 'You know, that is really insensitive!' "
Heck you took time to try to change me into (what appears) to me to be a very Angry atheist hater of God like you but gladly very unsuccessfully. You make assumptions that I am highly religious and belong to some weirdo fundamental sect, of which I am not? But I take my hat off to you you are a very competent Philosopher and I am sure you could easily put up a sound argument for the existence of God (Supreme being) If you wanted to. I find comfort believing in a God and a continuation of life beyond this mortal plane. My dear younger sister is dying of cancer and the only thing keeping going is her firm faith in a loving God.
God gave us a free will and let us each develop our own characters, thus some become Hitler and some Mother Teressa, Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi There is evil both in nature and in man because God allows for existence to be a duality of things, thus there is black and white, dark and light, good and evil, positive and negative, war and peace and so on and so on.
By the way what I experiences with my recent near death event was not my brain playing tricks on me due to oxygen deprivation or any other neurological reason but a profound,deep meaningful, protracted and beautiful experience in some other dimension of existence, indeed I believe one can be an atheist and still hope for a life after earthly death
I said science has stated over and over again that before the big bang there was nothing, thus from nothingness everything came according to most scientists and cosmologist but thankfully not all.
Do you believe that matter energy and space are eternal, infinite that simply had no prime mover or cause? Yes? or No?
By the way I am not the silly ignoramus you paint me as, but well educated in the sciences, especially in cosmology and comparative religious thought
I put in briefly Thomas Aquinas five proof of Gods existence for those who have not read them before
St. Thomas Aquinas was the greatest medieval philosopher. He tried to show the harmony between faith and reason, and between Christianity and philosophy. Aquinas's views have been very influential, especially in Catholic thought.
1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.
2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.
3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.
Aquinas's Proofs 4 and 5
4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.
5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "necessary being" (a being that has to exist) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - God by definition has all positive attributes. But existence is a positive attribute. So God exists by definition -- and of necessity.
{ 2 } - Only a being that exists of necessity could be a suitable object of worship.
{ 3 } - Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being.
Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "first cause" (something that causes other things to exist but that isn't itself caused to exist by anything else) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - There is a second cause, and so there must be a first cause.
{ 2 } - "X causes Y" only means that things like X are followed in our experience by things like Y.
{ 3 } - Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause.
{ 4 } - Causality is only a category that the mind uses to put together the raw data of sensation.
A near death experience of Pam Reynolds below
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =104397005
Reynolds' journey began one hot August day in 1991.
"I was in Virginia Beach, Va., with my husband," she recalls. "We were promoting a new record. And I inexplicably forgot how to talk. I've got a big mouth. I never forget how to talk."
An MRI revealed an aneurysm on her brain stem. It was already leaking, a ticking time bomb. Her doctor in Atlanta said her best hope was a young brain surgeon at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Arizona named Robert Spetzler.
"The aneurysm was very large, which meant the risk of rupture was also very large," Spetzler says. "And it was in a location where the only way to really give her the very best odds of fixing it required what we call 'cardiac standstill.' "
It was a daring operation: Chilling her body, draining the blood out of her head like oil from a car engine, snipping the aneurysm and then bringing her back from the edge of death.
"She is as deeply comatose as you can be and still be alive," Spetzler observes.
When the operation began, the surgeons taped shut Reynolds' eyes and put molded speakers in her ears. The ear speakers, which made clicking sounds as loud as a jet plane taking off, allowed the surgeons to measure her brain stem activity and let them know when they could drain her blood.
"I was lying there on the gurney minding my own business, seriously unconscious, when I started to hear a noise," Reynolds recalls. "It was a natural D, and as the sound continued — I don't know how to explain this, other than to go ahead and say it — I popped up out the top of my head."
Dying In A Brain Scanner, Sort Of
A Tunnel And Bright Light
She says she found herself looking down at the operating table. She says she could see 20 people around the table and hear what sounded like a dentist's drill. She looked at the instrument in the surgeon's hand.
"It was an odd-looking thing," she says. "It looked like the handle on my electric toothbrush."
Reynolds observed the Midas Rex bone saw the surgeons used to cut open her head, the drill bits, and the case, which looked like the one where her father kept his socket wrenches. Then she noticed a surgeon at her left groin.
"I heard a female voice say, 'Her arteries are too small.' And Dr. Spetzler — I think it was him — said, 'Use the other side,' " Reynolds says.
Soon after, the surgeons began to lower her body temperature to 60 degrees. It was about that time that Reynolds believes she noticed a tunnel and bright light. She eventually flat-lined completely, and the surgeons drained the blood out of her head.
During her near-death experience, she says she chatted with her dead grandmother and uncle, who escorted her back to the operating room. She says as they looked down on her body, she could hear the Eagles' song "Hotel California" playing in the operating room as the doctors restarted her heart. She says her body looked like a train wreck, and she said she didn't want to return.
"My uncle pushed me," she says, laughing. "And when I hit the body, the line in the song was, 'You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.' And I opened my eyes and I said, 'You know, that is really insensitive!' "
December 2nd, 2011, 9:49 am
Hi Eric use constantly use the term Absurd in response to my augments for the existence of God.
Respectfully they are "absurd to you" BUT not to "billions of humans living on this planet", you are of the tiny minority and should own up to that fact!
How about the below arguments?
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/believe.php
You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone, to prove His existence... No one needs proof that God exists, I simply offer these 8 steps to the logical proof of God's existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing).
Step One: Laws of Logic
In the introduction page I mentioned 'logical proof.' The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way
Step Two: Laws of Mathematics
The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well). For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.
Step Three: Laws of Science
Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.
Step Four: Absolute Moral Laws
I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws 'prescribe' how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.
Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs
Step Five: The Nature of Laws (a)
By reaching this stage you might have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next we will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?
Step Six: The Nature of Laws (b)
You have to acknowledg that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?
Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)
You have to acknowled that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not made of matter, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.
To reach this stage you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.
I never attempt to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him
The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Divine God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible “in order to prove anything.”
This type of logical proof deals with ‘transcendentals’ or ‘necessary starting points,’ and the proof is called a ‘transcendental proof.’ Any contrary view to the reality of an eternal God, being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume that God exists in order to argue
Respectfully they are "absurd to you" BUT not to "billions of humans living on this planet", you are of the tiny minority and should own up to that fact!
How about the below arguments?
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/believe.php
You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone, to prove His existence... No one needs proof that God exists, I simply offer these 8 steps to the logical proof of God's existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing).
Step One: Laws of Logic
In the introduction page I mentioned 'logical proof.' The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way
Step Two: Laws of Mathematics
The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well). For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.
Step Three: Laws of Science
Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.
Step Four: Absolute Moral Laws
I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws 'prescribe' how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.
Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs
Step Five: The Nature of Laws (a)
By reaching this stage you might have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next we will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?
Step Six: The Nature of Laws (b)
You have to acknowledg that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?
Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)
You have to acknowled that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not made of matter, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.
To reach this stage you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.
I never attempt to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him
The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Divine God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible “in order to prove anything.”
This type of logical proof deals with ‘transcendentals’ or ‘necessary starting points,’ and the proof is called a ‘transcendental proof.’ Any contrary view to the reality of an eternal God, being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume that God exists in order to argue
December 4th, 2011, 12:13 pm
Logic4All wrote:Alan,
I thought you made a post to have an intellectual debate, if you wanted everyone to agree with you, next time please say that no differing views aloud, Theists only. I hope there is an afterlife for you, disappointment can hit harder than a philosophical debate if there isn’t.
Thanks
I most definitely wanted an intellectual debate of which I am glad to say I got from all of you good people, but I also retain the right of my own opinion, how the heck do you think I am so silly as to expect everyone to agree with me?
December 5th, 2011, 5:33 pm
Eric I respectfully disagree with all your well written, long, protracted and convoluted attempt to philosophy away what to me is a fact, Gods Exists and that is the reason you exist and can take part in this debate.
December 6th, 2011, 7:00 am
Belinda wrote:Wooden Shoe wrote:My idea of a God: The ultimate metaphysical entity/s, indescribable with human language.
That is why the Biblical descriptors fail because it gives human qualities to a metaphysical entity.
I thInk this is the God that is under discussion, and we are not right now discussing God of Providence who is not necessarily the same idea although Christians tend to assume that the ultimate metaphysical entity is the same essence as Providence.
The ultimate metaphysical entity or, in other words, the God who exists is not as all- embracing , not as ultimate, as existence itself. This is because some finite entity such as a pen, a dog, a brain, a rock, a mountain or etc. is a part of what exists, therefore the claim that God exists is a lesser claim than that God is existence itself.
Hi, Belinda and others , the God I was talking about at the start of this thread is not the God of Christianity or any religion for that fact, the closest to a god by my why of thinking is the prime mover, uncaused cause, a mysterious sort of a ever existing consciousness that caused both the universe and all the other universes etc, if they exist, including maybe existence in multiple dimensions as yet unknown, to come into existence. Thus to me God equates to Existence and Existence equates to the Supreme mind. We cannot separate the two an Astronomer once said the Universe looks less like a great well oiled machine and "more like a great thought , the more he looked out on it" To me this thought is one of the creations of this infinitely intelligent Entity call it god if you like
"Astrophysicist Sir James Jeans wrote in the 1930s, “…the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.” So, too, I am proposing, in The God Theory, that ultimately it is consciousness that is the origin of matter, energy, and the laws of nature in this universe and all others that may exist."
This entity to me is simply beyond human comprehension and if we have difficulty with imagining an entity that is both ever existing, eternal and infinite, it is because of our limited human intellect, when compared to the entity, that caused all of existence to come into being, that we argue debate maybe this great Entity when it is maybe is so completely , beyond human comprehension and so utterly awesome, that when compared to little humanity sticking to a little ball of dust in some tiny corner withing the unimaginable vastness of the universe, that we are but a microbe in the vastness of the universe
December 7th, 2011, 3:35 pm
I know this is not debating by me (Please indulge me), but an attempt to indicate that I am in very good company in believing in a creator of all things
Nobel Scientists (20-21 Century)
Albert Einstein Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant
Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic
Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran
Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist
Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)
Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican
Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian
Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim
Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker
Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)
Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Nobel Writers (20-21 Century)
T.S. Eliot Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglo-Catholic (Anglican)
Rudyard Kipling Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican
Alexander Solzhenitsyn Nobel Laureate in Literature Russian Orthodox
François Mauriac Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic
Hermann Hesse Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian; Buddhist?
Winston Churchill Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican
Jean-Paul Sartre Nobel Laureate in Literature Lutheran; Freudian; Marxist; atheist; Messianic Jew
Sigrid Undset Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic (previously Lutheran)
Rabindranath Tagore Nobel Laureate in Literature Hindu
Rudolf Eucken Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian (denomination?)
Isaac Singer Nobel Laureate in Literature Jewish
Nobel Peace Laureates (20-21 Century)
Albert Schweitzer Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Lutheran
Jimmy Carter Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Baptist (former Southern Baptist)
Theodore Roosevelt Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dutch Reformed; Episcopalian
Woodrow Wilson Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Presbyterian
Frederik de Klerk Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dutch Reformed
Nelson Mandela Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Christian (denomination?)
Kim Dae-Jung Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Catholic
Dag Hammarskjold Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Christian (denomination?)
Martin Luther King, Jr. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Baptist
Adolfo Perez Esquivel Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Catholic
Desmond Tutu Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Anglican
John R. Mott Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Methodist
Founders of Modern Science (16-21 Century)
Isaac Newton Founder of Classical Physics and Infinitesimal Calculus Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)
Galileo Galilei Founder of Experimental Physics Catholic
Nicolaus Copernicus Founder of Heliocentric Cosmology Catholic (priest)
Johannes Kepler Founder of Physical Astronomy and Modern Optics Lutheran
Francis Bacon Founder of the Scientific Inductive Method Anglican
René Descartes Founder of Analytical Geometry and Modern Philosophy Catholic
Blaise Pascal Founder of Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics,
and the Theory of Probabilities Jansenist
Michael Faraday Founder of Electronics and Electro-Magnetics Sandemanian
James Clerk Maxwell Founder of Statistical Thermodynamics Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
Lord Kelvin Founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics Anglican
Robert Boyle Founder of Modern Chemistry Anglican
William Harvey Founder of Modern Medicine Anglican (nominal)
John Ray Founder of Modern Biology and Natural History Calvinist (denomination?)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz German Mathematician and Philosopher,
Founder of Infinitesimal Calculus Lutheran
Charles Darwin Founder of the Theory of Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
Ernst Haeckel German Biologist,
the Most Influential Evolutionist in Continental Europe
Thomas H. Huxley English Biologist and Evolutionist,
Famous As "Darwin's Bulldog"
Joseph J. Thomson Nobel Laureate in Physics, Discoverer of the Electron,
Founder of Atomic Physics Anglican
Louis Pasteur Founder of Microbiology and Immunology Catholic
Great Philosophers (17-21 Century)
Immanuel Kant One of the Greatest Philosophers
in the History of Western Philosophy Lutheran
Jean-Jacques Rousseau Founder of Modern Deism born Protestant;
converted as a teen to Catholic
Voltaire French Philosopher and Historian,
One of the Most Influential Thinkers of the Enlightenment raised in Jansenism
David Hume Scottish Empiricist Philosopher, Historian, and Economist,
Founder of Modern Skepticism Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Spinoza Dutch-Jewish Philosopher,
the Chief Exponent of Modern Rationalism Judaism; later pantheism/deism
Giordano Bruno Italian Philosopher, Astronomer, and Mathematician,
Founder of the Theory of the Infinite Universe Catholic
George Berkeley Irish Philosopher and Mathematician, Founder of Modern Idealism,
Famous as "The Precursor of Mach and Einstein" Anglican
John Stuart Mill English Philosopher and Economist,
the Major Exponent of Utilitarianism agnostic; Utilitarian
Richard Swinburne Oxford Professor of Philosophy,
One of the Most Influential Theistic Philosophers
Nobelists, Philosophers, and Scientists that believe in Jesus
- Alexis Carrel
- Albert Einstein
- Arthur Compton
- Robert Millikan
- Francois Mauriac
- Sigrid Undset
- T.S. Eliot
- Mother Theresa
- Albert Schweitzer
- Theodore Roosevelt
- Frederik de Klerk
- John R. Mott
- Kim Dae-Jung
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Jimmy Carter
- Blaise Pascal
Nobel Scientists (20-21 Century)
Albert Einstein Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant
Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic
Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran
Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist
Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)
Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican
Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian
Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim
Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker
Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)
Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Nobel Writers (20-21 Century)
T.S. Eliot Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglo-Catholic (Anglican)
Rudyard Kipling Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican
Alexander Solzhenitsyn Nobel Laureate in Literature Russian Orthodox
François Mauriac Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic
Hermann Hesse Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian; Buddhist?
Winston Churchill Nobel Laureate in Literature Anglican
Jean-Paul Sartre Nobel Laureate in Literature Lutheran; Freudian; Marxist; atheist; Messianic Jew
Sigrid Undset Nobel Laureate in Literature Catholic (previously Lutheran)
Rabindranath Tagore Nobel Laureate in Literature Hindu
Rudolf Eucken Nobel Laureate in Literature Christian (denomination?)
Isaac Singer Nobel Laureate in Literature Jewish
Nobel Peace Laureates (20-21 Century)
Albert Schweitzer Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Lutheran
Jimmy Carter Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Baptist (former Southern Baptist)
Theodore Roosevelt Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dutch Reformed; Episcopalian
Woodrow Wilson Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Presbyterian
Frederik de Klerk Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dutch Reformed
Nelson Mandela Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Christian (denomination?)
Kim Dae-Jung Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Catholic
Dag Hammarskjold Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Christian (denomination?)
Martin Luther King, Jr. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Baptist
Adolfo Perez Esquivel Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Catholic
Desmond Tutu Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Anglican
John R. Mott Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Methodist
Founders of Modern Science (16-21 Century)
Isaac Newton Founder of Classical Physics and Infinitesimal Calculus Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)
Galileo Galilei Founder of Experimental Physics Catholic
Nicolaus Copernicus Founder of Heliocentric Cosmology Catholic (priest)
Johannes Kepler Founder of Physical Astronomy and Modern Optics Lutheran
Francis Bacon Founder of the Scientific Inductive Method Anglican
René Descartes Founder of Analytical Geometry and Modern Philosophy Catholic
Blaise Pascal Founder of Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics,
and the Theory of Probabilities Jansenist
Michael Faraday Founder of Electronics and Electro-Magnetics Sandemanian
James Clerk Maxwell Founder of Statistical Thermodynamics Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
Lord Kelvin Founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics Anglican
Robert Boyle Founder of Modern Chemistry Anglican
William Harvey Founder of Modern Medicine Anglican (nominal)
John Ray Founder of Modern Biology and Natural History Calvinist (denomination?)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz German Mathematician and Philosopher,
Founder of Infinitesimal Calculus Lutheran
Charles Darwin Founder of the Theory of Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
Ernst Haeckel German Biologist,
the Most Influential Evolutionist in Continental Europe
Thomas H. Huxley English Biologist and Evolutionist,
Famous As "Darwin's Bulldog"
Joseph J. Thomson Nobel Laureate in Physics, Discoverer of the Electron,
Founder of Atomic Physics Anglican
Louis Pasteur Founder of Microbiology and Immunology Catholic
Great Philosophers (17-21 Century)
Immanuel Kant One of the Greatest Philosophers
in the History of Western Philosophy Lutheran
Jean-Jacques Rousseau Founder of Modern Deism born Protestant;
converted as a teen to Catholic
Voltaire French Philosopher and Historian,
One of the Most Influential Thinkers of the Enlightenment raised in Jansenism
David Hume Scottish Empiricist Philosopher, Historian, and Economist,
Founder of Modern Skepticism Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Spinoza Dutch-Jewish Philosopher,
the Chief Exponent of Modern Rationalism Judaism; later pantheism/deism
Giordano Bruno Italian Philosopher, Astronomer, and Mathematician,
Founder of the Theory of the Infinite Universe Catholic
George Berkeley Irish Philosopher and Mathematician, Founder of Modern Idealism,
Famous as "The Precursor of Mach and Einstein" Anglican
John Stuart Mill English Philosopher and Economist,
the Major Exponent of Utilitarianism agnostic; Utilitarian
Richard Swinburne Oxford Professor of Philosophy,
One of the Most Influential Theistic Philosophers
Nobelists, Philosophers, and Scientists that believe in Jesus
- Alexis Carrel
- Albert Einstein
- Arthur Compton
- Robert Millikan
- Francois Mauriac
- Sigrid Undset
- T.S. Eliot
- Mother Theresa
- Albert Schweitzer
- Theodore Roosevelt
- Frederik de Klerk
- John R. Mott
- Kim Dae-Jung
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Jimmy Carter
- Blaise Pascal
December 8th, 2011, 2:06 pm
Hi Martin, II searched and found you reason for not believing in God and will address them one by one below
L
How on earth can you make statements (God has no desire) for an entity as far above you in intellect and might, as a quantum particle is to the universe?
[/quote]
Now about the list of great people that believe or believed in God, you did pick up a few supposed mistakes, Darwin , Spinoza and Einstein, Darwin in his youth was going to become a minister of religion and became an atheist later, Einstein when asked if he believed in a God, said yes he believed in the God of Spinoza, this God supposedly created everything but after that took no further interest in it leaving it to run its own course
L
ogic4All"]Martin,
Very interesting point, and it oddly reminds me of a Star Trek episode, however that is not of concern.
The point you make is one that has been looked at many times however, and to some acts as a good argument against the existence of God. I will attempt to expand on it and depict it from the start.
1. If God exists, and is a first cause he must be his own creator. (Something can’t be a first cause and be caused by something else.)
That is because in your limited human understanding something like an ever existing entity simply cant exist, but existence is both eternal and infinite if you like it or not and I equate God to existence they are the same thing to me and have purpose and meaning
2. Something which is its own creator, and creates the rest of the world must be perfect and have every attribute.
How can you make such a statement about an entity infinitely beyond your comprehension, I say the Godmind evolves just like we do and is not perfect but learning how to order its own ongoing creation
3. A perfect being (from Leibniz) would create the world in such a way that it has the most phenomena, with the least amount of rules, and the least amount of chaos. (Balancing effect of all three for perfection)
God is not perfect!! (it is you that has defined this entity as perfect not me)), is this not obvious to you, the gods of religion are supposedly perfect but not the God of my understanding
4. If God is perfect, when he created the world, he saw everything that would ever happen, and made the world so no correction would ever be needed.
5. This means that if God were to act in any form on the world after its creation his initial plan was flawed.
6. If his plan was flawed, his vision was flawed.
7. A perfect being cannot have flaws.
8. God is not a perfect being.
9. God does not exist
I agree with 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 above except although not perfect , yet this Entity exists
Or
10. From 4. If God cannot make any corrections on the world he is restricted.
He is not restricted and can do exactly what he likes without asking for your or mine opinion on any matter
11. If God is restricted, he is not perfect
As above point 10 he is sovereign and not restricted by anything in existence
12. God must be perfect to exist
Rubbish
13. God does not exist.
I respectfully disagree completely, I acknowledge I am a theist but hopefully a rational theist
Note for 10/11 : some might say God would act on the world because its his will, however God has no desire (that’s a imperfection since it implies the lack of something) therefore his reason would be to adjust and would fall into the line of reason from 4 - 9
How on earth can you make statements (God has no desire) for an entity as far above you in intellect and might, as a quantum particle is to the universe?
[/quote]
Now about the list of great people that believe or believed in God, you did pick up a few supposed mistakes, Darwin , Spinoza and Einstein, Darwin in his youth was going to become a minister of religion and became an atheist later, Einstein when asked if he believed in a God, said yes he believed in the God of Spinoza, this God supposedly created everything but after that took no further interest in it leaving it to run its own course
December 8th, 2011, 5:00 pm
Logic4All
As a side note, your counter argument was for the most part, not an argument at all. Your justification for my premises being false was that I could not comprehend the attributes of God because I am limited. You as well are limited, so how can you know my premises are false?
How can you likewise, know my premises are false?
Also, your question at the bottom is easily answered. If God is the initial creator, then everything must come from God. A Desire means that you want something, or that something is lacking. If God created everything, how can he be lacking something? It would mean that his initial plan was flawed because he missed something. If you wish to give God the ability to also be flawed, and contradict your own theistic beliefs, be my guest, I was being generous.
No!! I do not contradict my own theist position, God created everything in this universe that we know of “UP TO THIS POINT IN TIME”, creation is an ongoing process by an experimental God. The theist beliefs you are talking about are those of the Abrahamic religions AND NOT MINE Earlier I admit I posted the usual arguments for the existence of god to get the topic going
At the very least, please answer how you understand a being beyond comprehension. “I say the Godmind evolves just like we do and is not perfect but learning how to order its own ongoing creation”
Can you comprehend the mind of Einstein? I do not think so, but maybe you see my argument, there are even human beings presently living whose minds or intellects that beyond your comprehension or mine. Thus it is obvious that this supreme mind, is and must, be beyond human comprehension, because we only know a tiny quantum flash about the total reality of existence. Do you understand all about or even some of the basics of particle and quantum physics? This entity must because it set these parameters down and in order.
This entity or universal consciousness is obviously not perfect and makes mistakes; we humans are a prime example of that fact
-- Updated Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:11 pm to add the following --
Hi xris I am very comfortable with you remaining an atheist and a very nice one at that. In the grand order of thing it really makes no difference if I am a theist and you are an atheist, what is really true will prove to be true and all we can do is wait and see.
If you were the only atheist left in the world amongst billions of theists I would find it refreshing indeed (Some one to talk to and debate) because atheist are generally nicer people that the awful fundamentalists that I have unfortunately to come across in my somewhat protracted life
As a side note, your counter argument was for the most part, not an argument at all. Your justification for my premises being false was that I could not comprehend the attributes of God because I am limited. You as well are limited, so how can you know my premises are false?
How can you likewise, know my premises are false?
Also, your question at the bottom is easily answered. If God is the initial creator, then everything must come from God. A Desire means that you want something, or that something is lacking. If God created everything, how can he be lacking something? It would mean that his initial plan was flawed because he missed something. If you wish to give God the ability to also be flawed, and contradict your own theistic beliefs, be my guest, I was being generous.
No!! I do not contradict my own theist position, God created everything in this universe that we know of “UP TO THIS POINT IN TIME”, creation is an ongoing process by an experimental God. The theist beliefs you are talking about are those of the Abrahamic religions AND NOT MINE Earlier I admit I posted the usual arguments for the existence of god to get the topic going
At the very least, please answer how you understand a being beyond comprehension. “I say the Godmind evolves just like we do and is not perfect but learning how to order its own ongoing creation”
Can you comprehend the mind of Einstein? I do not think so, but maybe you see my argument, there are even human beings presently living whose minds or intellects that beyond your comprehension or mine. Thus it is obvious that this supreme mind, is and must, be beyond human comprehension, because we only know a tiny quantum flash about the total reality of existence. Do you understand all about or even some of the basics of particle and quantum physics? This entity must because it set these parameters down and in order.
This entity or universal consciousness is obviously not perfect and makes mistakes; we humans are a prime example of that fact
-- Updated Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:11 pm to add the following --
Xris wrote:Alan if I was the only atheist in the world should I change my views for logic or company.
Hi xris I am very comfortable with you remaining an atheist and a very nice one at that. In the grand order of thing it really makes no difference if I am a theist and you are an atheist, what is really true will prove to be true and all we can do is wait and see.
If you were the only atheist left in the world amongst billions of theists I would find it refreshing indeed (Some one to talk to and debate) because atheist are generally nicer people that the awful fundamentalists that I have unfortunately to come across in my somewhat protracted life
December 9th, 2011, 12:00 pm
Logic4All wrote:Alan,
If you took the time to read my argument, you would see that when I was generous to your argument, I said we could at least conclude that your premises can neither be proved nor disproved.
[color=#0000BF]The existence of can not be proved only indicated by a great deal of circumstantial evidence, likewise the nonexistence of God cannot be proved and there is almost no circumstantial evidence for Gods nonexistence in my opinion. Thus I am swayed by these factors to believe in the existence of God[/color]
“Thus it is obvious that this supreme mind, is and must, be beyond human comprehension”
I am actually astonished you wrote down that answer. You are begging the question, you assume the mind of God exists, then attribute non comprehension to it. However, I would request you try and answer again, and without answering with a question.
I must answer it with some question, please dont try and dictate my method of debating!!
Can you comprehend the true size of a blue whale? You will have to stand next to it to realize your tiny somewhat 170 pounds against its two hundred tons
Can you truly comprehend the size of the earths oceans or the earths immense size and almost eternal age,? I do not thing so
Can you comprehend the unimaginable vastness, complexity and age of the universe, of course you cant and neither can I for that matter?
Yet you persist that a infinite eternal entity, if it exists must somehow be comprehensible to mere mortal man, this really perplexes me Martin
Alan, my question is, If a being is beyond human comprehension, how can you comprehend so much about it. Very basic question since you claim to know so much about your God. Please do not dance around it the same way as last time.
"I comprehend nothing about the God entity" other than by the circumstantial very strong evidence that suggests to me that God must exist, that is my position
-- Updated December 8th, 2011, 4:32 pm to add the following --
I would also like to point out how you are contradicting yourself once again.
“Question: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?"
Answer: The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved”
I just said that given the parameters of your personal God, it cannot be proven or disproven, yet you still argue against me?
I could never given an eternity prove to you that God exists to you, "I have no personal God" and surly this should be evident to you by now!! All I can do is present the circumstancial evidence that strongly support the evidence of an Intelligent Designer of the universe
I am a little confused if you actually know what your arguing at this point. It is like playing a game with someone who continually changes the rules. You can create any personal God you like, however thus far, all my arguments hold for the commonly accepted versions of God. Contrary to popular belief, I cannot predict what you are going to say, how can you expect to have a debate if you continually bring up new aspects to your God.
I have said over and over again the God I am proposing is not that of any religion, please take note of that fact, the God of my understanding is the ever existing consciousness that pervades and creates matter, spacetime and energy, the God of the fundamental constants and forces if you like We humans have consciousness, thus it is obvious that somewhere there must be still higher consciousnesses than us, we are not the pinnacle of creation, at some point there must be a supreme consciousness and I refer to this consciousness as the "Superconsciousness" or better known as God by others
I do have a good understanding of why you don’t simply explain this god of course. I realise you would say, my God is beyond human comprehension. Thus neither me nor you can comprehend your God, and there is nothing to talk about.
Can you comprehend it if it existed?
December 9th, 2011, 4:16 pm
Wooden shoe wrote:Alan wrote:
"I comprehend nothing about the God entity" other than by the circumstantial very strong evidence that suggests to me that God must exist, that is my position. [ End quote]
This seems to be a very honest self assessment of a God believers reality.
But I am struck by the similarity of this statement and what we know of early mankind and its view of its reality.
So what has changed over the many thousands of years since mankind was awestruck by the world and nature and saw some deity in the various incomprehensible realities it experienced.
Yes,slowly on many of these complexities have been peeled back and are no longer mysterious.
But many questions still remain, and for many, the God concept is more satisfying as an answer than any other.
This is something I respect as long as it does not become a hindrance in the search for a clearer understanding of our life, our world and our universe.
I would ask for this respect to be reciprocal to those of us who do not concur with the God belief.
Regards, John.
Hi John, I respect the right of anyone to believe anything they like including the nonexistence of God, Mankind has learned an enormous amount the universe and what hold it up , but there is somethings that humans will simply never know such as exactly where did existence come, how did it come into existence. (This could include much more than our universe)
Existence must be eternal and infinite having no beginning and no end, I am not talking just about our universe, because it is obviously finite it had a beginning and it will have and end Entropy with ensure this fact.
The Superconsciousness (God) In my opinion pervades, created evolves and sustains "all of existence", and because it is eternal and infinite it can never stop creating, evolving and learning. Because it will always has an infinity and eternity of time before it and could not possibly say "my creation is finished".
Because it would then have to stop any further development of creation and exist in a static reality of unimaginable everlasting boredom of doing nothing at all forever and ever.
December 10th, 2011, 11:38 am
Hi rainchild hi Jim,
You stated,
I really like this list and it fits in nicely with what I believe about the Divine Entity of infinite power and knowledge. Some people on this forum have real difficulty with my believing in God beyond my comprehension, surly one can believe in something that one cannot comprehend? What do you think Jim about that fact?
-- Updated Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:57 pm to add the following --
Hi Martin maybe you are right but then it must be a force that directs and sustains all the aspects of creation, I prefer a consciousness because because the universe seems to be based on precise order . By the way a infinitely mighty being need not of necessary create "what we consider a perfect universe or creation", after all perfection is very subjective, Hitler thought it perfect to murder millions in the Holocaust. And yes how can we understand all about an Infinite multidimensional being from the view point of our limited understanding within a three dimensional reality?
You stated,
a) a being, in other words an entity whose acts can be meaningfully described from the intentional stance
b) the creator of reality, including any and all universes
c) omnipotent: such that no inability can be attributed to this deity, and this deity is capable of causing any logically possible state of affairs
d) omniscient: such that this deity knows all real states of affairs, including all subjective and objective events
e) everlasting: such that the duration of this deity is infinite, because its acts and intentions extend infinitely into the past and future
f) immaterial: such that physics cannot model this deity even in principle
g) transcendent: such that the deity's existence and characteristics are not caused by a) any phenomena in any universe or b) any other cause
I really like this list and it fits in nicely with what I believe about the Divine Entity of infinite power and knowledge. Some people on this forum have real difficulty with my believing in God beyond my comprehension, surly one can believe in something that one cannot comprehend? What do you think Jim about that fact?
-- Updated Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:57 pm to add the following --
Thinking critical wrote:Hi Alan,
The god you speak of tends hold similar characteristics of what quantum physics are currently attempting to understand through String Theory. Without the conscious being trait of your description.
Have you ever pondered over the possibility that there may be an explanation comprehensible by humans that conclusively explain phenomena’s such as existence and consciousness?
Perhaps God is the definition for a force yet to be discovered by man...
Hi Martin maybe you are right but then it must be a force that directs and sustains all the aspects of creation, I prefer a consciousness because because the universe seems to be based on precise order . By the way a infinitely mighty being need not of necessary create "what we consider a perfect universe or creation", after all perfection is very subjective, Hitler thought it perfect to murder millions in the Holocaust. And yes how can we understand all about an Infinite multidimensional being from the view point of our limited understanding within a three dimensional reality?
- Search found 14 matches • Page 1 of 1