Jump to: Board index
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
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.
November 30th, 2011, 9:56 pm
December 2nd, 2011, 9:49 am
December 4th, 2011, 12:13 pm
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.
December 5th, 2011, 5:33 pm
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.
December 7th, 2011, 3:35 pm
December 8th, 2011, 2:06 pm
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
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
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
December 8th, 2011, 5:00 pm
Xris wrote:Alan if I was the only atheist in the world should I change my views for logic or company.
December 9th, 2011, 12:00 pm
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.
December 10th, 2011, 11:38 am
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
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...