Arguments for and against the existence of God

[lightgigantic]

No lightgigantic, the part where I explained that by dint of being 'perfect' it can be said that such entity has no needs. I further explained that a 'desire' actually reflects a need, (mental/physical/spiritual fulfillment).

you can't see how the bit where you explain how or why this is the case (ie why it is that perfection requires an absence of desire) is conspicuous by its absence?

What? Kindly clarify what you're trying to say here. What "changing nature" are you talking about?

you seem to be talking about how change in desire (even if it is not a change in the general goal or direction of desire) constitutes a (radically) changed state ... I agree it is a bit hard to clarify since you are really foggy on the ground work that supports such an assumption

What? We know that humans do change from having one food or flavour to another due to ever changing needs. I am unsure how it's relevant here.

but is that a radically changed state?

What? I said I had other arguments but won't put them here to which you claimed there were rebuttals to those arguments. What rebuttals? Can you link me to the rebuttals of the arguments I didn't make?

If a party in a debate can lay claim to a superior position by putting forward an argument that they don't put forward, it stands to reason that it can be refuted by a rebuttal that the opposing party also doesn't put forward.

So by the same logic that dictates that there is no rational need to put up decorations during Christmas, you stand defeated.
ok?

 

[wynn]

you can't see how the bit where you explain how or why this is the case (ie why it is that perfection requires an absence of desire) is conspicuous by its absence?

you seem to be talking about how change in desire (even if it is not a change in the general goal or direction of desire) constitutes a (radically) changed state ... I agree it is a bit hard to clarify since you are really foggy on the ground work that supports such an assumption

but is that a radically changed state?

If a party in a debate can lay claim to a superior position by putting forward an argument that they don't put forward, it stands to reason that it can be refuted by a rebuttal that the opposing party also doesn't put forward.

So by the same logic that dictates that there is no rational need to put up decorations during Christmas, you stand defeated.
ok?

Actually, I am not sure there is much of a communication here for the time being - given that many of us believe per default that perfection entails immutability and absence of need or desire.
It is the notion of perfection that we were brought up with, and it goes without saying for us as much as it goes without saying what we understand by "apple" or "table".


Obviously, you seem to be working with a radically different understanding of the concept of perfection. So at this point, I would appreciate it if you would put forward a stance, preferrably in the threads I started for this purpose and linked to above.

 

[NMSquirrel]

given that many of us believe per default that perfection entails immutability and absence of need or desire.
It is the notion of perfection that we were brought up with, and it goes without saying for us as much as it goes without saying what we understand by "apple" or "table".

perfection is the absence of mistakes..

when associated with humanity perfection is not achievable..
(show me someone who is perfect and i'll show you someone who knows how to hide his imperfections)

needs and desires are a necessary part of the human condition without which we would not grow or achieve or for that matter love.

(wait a minute..isn't that another thread?)

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually, I am not sure there is much of a communication here for the time being - given that many of us believe per default that perfection entails immutability and absence of need or desire.
It is the notion of perfection that we were brought up with, and it goes without saying for us as much as it goes without saying what we understand by "apple" or "table".


Obviously, you seem to be working with a radically different understanding of the concept of perfection. So at this point, I would appreciate it if you would put forward a stance, preferrably in the threads I started for this purpose and linked to above.

ok take this example of imperfection

Is it imperfect because she desired her dog to fetch or are there a few details of relationship that contributed to the mishap?

Or to say it another way, on the strength of this girls experience of imperfection, can we say that all instances of desiring a dog to fetch are imperfect?

 

[wynn]

ok take this example of imperfection

Is it imperfect because she desired her dog to fetch or are there a few details of relationship that contributed to the mishap?

Or to say it another way, on the strength of this girls experience of imperfection, can we say that all instances of desiring a dog to fetch are imperfect?

I completely fail to understand where you are coming from or what you are trying to show with this.

I'd be more inclined to think that a desire like desiring a dog to fetch is imperfect in and of itself, regardless of the mishaps that may occur.

 

[SnakeLord]

you can't see how the bit where you explain how or why this is the case..

Your statement is a tad odd. It seems to be an obscure way of you saying you don't understand the explanation that was provided and would like me to attempt it again. Would you like me to?

you seem to be talking about how change in desire (even if it is not a change in the general goal or direction of desire) constitutes a (radically) changed state

You are talking about changes in desire and radical whatsits. I said that a perfect entity by very definition has no needs or desires, (desires reflect needs). Given that such entity has no desires or needs, there's no valid, logical argument for the creation of anything or change from currently existing state. If you have a specific argument against that, please get to it.

I was hoping, when returning from my long absence, you would have improved in your ability to discuss the issue directly.

but is that a radically changed state?

It is a change from one state to another - something that isn't logically arguable for an entity that is perfect and hence without needs or desires, (which reflect needs).

If a party in a debate can lay claim to a superior position by putting forward an argument that they don't put forward, it stands to reason that it can be refuted by a rebuttal that the opposing party also doesn't put forward

What in the world are you waffling on about? I am a busy man, please do not waste my time with such flagrant silliness.

So by the same logic that dictates that there is no rational need to put up decorations during Christmas

What? If this is an attempted rebuttal, it's sorely lacking and indeed just shows that you don't even understand the argument. Kindly take some time to go over it and message me when you finally think you're ready.

 

[lightgigantic]

I completely fail to understand where you are coming from or what you are trying to show with this.

I'd be more inclined to think that a desire like desiring a dog to fetch is imperfect in and of itself, regardless of the mishaps that may occur.

So anyone who plays fetch with a dog, shares an equal degree of imperfection with the little girl?
Or have others possibly nutted out a few details of relationship with fetch that enable a completely different result?

 

[lightgigantic]

Your statement is a tad odd. It seems to be an obscure way of you saying you don't understand the explanation that was provided and would like me to attempt it again. Would you like me to?

explain how or why you think perfection requires an absence of desire or need of course.
Perhaps we are making more progress with this iin the other thread where you are just about to explain to me why shifting between a like of different flavours is a departure from the claim "ice cream is the perfect food"

You are talking about changes in desire and radical whatsits. I said that a perfect entity by very definition has no needs or desires, (desires reflect needs).

yes yes, but you go on to state that the basis for this imperfection is that it involves change. The fact that you suggest that even a shift of nuances within the category (such as flavours within the category of "ice cream") constants a violation seems to warrant a use of the word "radical"

Given that such entity has no desires or needs, there's no valid, logical argument for the creation of anything or change from currently existing state. If you have a specific argument against that, please get to it.

I was hoping, when returning from my long absence, you would have improved in your ability to discuss the issue directly.



It is a change from one state to another - something that isn't logically arguable for an entity that is perfect and hence without needs or desires, (which reflect needs).

at the moment we are just trying to get a clear picture why changing one's delight in flavour constitutes a change in the claim "ice cream is the perfect food"

What in the world are you waffling on about? I am a busy man, please do not waste my time with such flagrant silliness.

yes
apparently too busy to even abide by the general rules of debate
:shrug:

What? If this is an attempted rebuttal, it's sorely lacking and indeed just shows that you don't even understand the argument. Kindly take some time to go over it and message me when you finally think you're ready.

I'm not sure what you don't understand about the rebuttal ... It has all the information you provided for your argument.

If you don't understand this, please go back to your original statements and join me in my unabashed rationality in abstaining from putting up decorations at christmas

 

[SnakeLord]

Perhaps we are making more progress with this iin the other thread where you are just about to explain to me why shifting between a like of different flavours is a departure from the claim "ice cream is the perfect food"

Clearly we are still stuck in a position of you not understanding the argument. A being with needs shifting from one perfect ice cream to another is not the argument. Take some time and once ready, desist with this strawman.

The fact that you suggest that even a shift of nuances within the category

Within.. what category? What are you talking about with relevance to my argument? (No, I wasn't talking about ice cream).

at the moment we are just trying to get a clear picture why changing one's delight in flavour constitutes a change in the claim "ice cream is the perfect food"

It doesn't, that's not the argument, it's a strawman of your own invention.

If a being with needs and desires changes from eating one perfect item to eating a different perfect item, the 'perfect items' are not in question. Please, take some time.

 

[lightgigantic]

Clearly we are still stuck in a position of you not understanding the argument. A being with needs shifting from one perfect ice cream to another is not the argument. Take some time and once ready, desist with this strawman.

I'm just reducing your argument to its core elements.
Please pay attention and note we are talking about "perfect ice cream". If you feel shifting to a different flavour violates the category you have a bit of explaining to do.

Within.. what category? What are you talking about with relevance to my argument? (No, I wasn't talking about ice cream).

lets start with the basics.
Can you understand how "strawberry ice cream", " and "vanilla ice cream" both fall in the category of "ice cream"?

It doesn't, that's not the argument, it's a strawman of your own invention.

Actually its an analogy to help you understand the weak points of your argument

If a being with needs and desires changes from eating one perfect item to eating a different perfect item, the 'perfect items' are not in question. Please, take some time.

So, inasmuch as ice cream is a category, you want to argue that vanilla flavoured is (radically) different from strawberry, yes?
so

 

[SnakeLord]

I'm just reducing your argument to its core elements

No. As we shall see in a moment, you have created a strawman:

Please pay attention and note we are talking about "perfect ice cream".

Ok and my original post was talking about a "perfect god". Your argument is that a needful person switches from one perfect ice cream to a different perfect ice cream - not that the perfect ice cream then goes about creating or changing its state of existence.

Hopefully you understand now. If not, I cannot help you further.

Can you understand how "strawberry ice cream", " and "vanilla ice cream" both fall in the category of "ice cream"?

Why are we talking about ice cream? Forget the strawman analogy and just stick to the actual issue. Thank you.

So, inasmuch as ice cream is a category, you want to argue that vanilla flavoured is (radically) different from strawberry, yes?

Vanilla is different from strawberry although I am again unsure of what relevance this is to anything or how "radically" fits in to the discussion. I have asked for explanation, I am yet to receive one. If you don't mind.

P.S Please provide that explanation in the other thread. There seems little point having the very same discussion in two threads hence my participation in this one will cease.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ok and my original post was talking about a "perfect god". Your argument is that a needful person switches from one perfect ice cream to a different perfect ice cream - not that the perfect ice cream then goes about creating or changing its state of existence.

Hopefully you understand now. If not, I cannot help you further.

Actually the original statement was "ice cream is the perfect food". I'm not sure what made you interpret that as a statement of self assertion from ice cream .... and once again, your insistence, if you want to talk about a difference of flavour (like say from strawberry to vanilla) being a (radical) difference, you still have to explain why strawberry or vanilla brings more or less to the category of ice cream.

Why are we talking about ice cream? Forget the strawman analogy and just stick to the actual issue. Thank you.

If you can't entertain variety within the category of ice cream, there's not much to be gained by moving onto variety within other more complicated fields.
:shrug:

Vanilla is different from strawberry although I am again unsure of what relevance this is to anything or how "radically" fits in to the discussion. I have asked for explanation, I am yet to receive one. If you don't mind.

Inasmuch as "ice cream" is the category, how is it different?

 

[SnakeLord]

Other thread please.

If you failed to notice:

P.S Please provide that explanation in the other thread. There seems little point having the very same discussion in two threads hence my participation in this one will cease

 

[zxcvbnm]

Yosef

Nice post I believe that "God and existence" are different names for the same reality. God is inscrutable to mere mortal man and it is silly for us humans to think we know exactly how god operates, within all of our majestic and beautifully organised universe

Mr Alan
I just logged in to post a reply for you,(only if you login)

The Concept of God in Islam is MOST Unique
Although many people do not accept it but they believe God to have "human" charecteristics,like father or son,or having "Who created god questions,etc"
But in Islam,if you will look at english tafseer(explained translation) of Chapter 112 of Quran, u will see

"Say thou: He is Allah the One. (1) Allah, the Independent. (2) He begets not, nor was He begotten. (3) And never there has been anyone co-equal with HIM. (4) "

And yeah ,I totally agree with you about humans having no Idea
about how GOD operates.
Your idea is exactly same as explained in Quraan above
as "And never there has been anyone co-equal with HIM"

Islam is the only Major religion, that say so.(Jewism and Christianity used to say it.But they have been altered)

I request you to study Quran.And if you got ANY question about Islam,feel free to contact me @ muzammilabdulrehman@hotmail.com as I will not be seeing this thread again.

One question to christians
How is Christ,son of God?
(Christ is a Prophet of God, according to Islam, just like many others)
If he is son of God then,How is God one??
If Christ himself is god,then who is God?Christ or God?Where does the holy ghost come in?
Why was christ put on "the cross",if he was god?Wh didnt he escape it?

And all the haters.....
Don't waste your time typing abuses or calling me names as I will not visit this form again.Use that time to study the following few lines again
" Holy Quraan, revealed 1400 years ago, said that, this world will COME TO AN END someday. AND NOW Sceintists are saying the same"

As only QUESTIONS about Islam will be entertained...NOT HATE MESSAGE

 

[spidergoat]

A hit and run Muslim! Coward.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Mr Alan
I just logged in to post a reply for you,(only if you login)

The Concept of God in Islam is MOST Unique
Although many people do not accept it but they believe God to have "human" charecteristics,like father or son,or having "Who created god questions,etc"
But in Islam,if you will look at english tafseer(explained translation) of Chapter 112 of Quran, u will see

"Say thou: He is Allah the One. (1) Allah, the Independent. (2) He begets not, nor was He begotten. (3) And never there has been anyone co-equal with HIM. (4) "

And yeah ,I totally agree with you about humans having no Idea
about how GOD operates.
Your idea is exactly same as explained in Quraan above
as "And never there has been anyone co-equal with HIM"

Islam is the only Major religion, that say so.(Jewism and Christianity used to say it.But they have been altered)

I request you to study Quran.And if you got ANY question about Islam,feel free to contact me @ muzammilabdulrehman@hotmail.com as I will not be seeing this thread again.

One question to christians
How is Christ,son of God?
(Christ is a Prophet of God, according to Islam, just like many others)
If he is son of God then,How is God one??
If Christ himself is god,then who is God?Christ or God?Where does the holy ghost come in?
Why was christ put on "the cross",if he was god?Wh didnt he escape it?

And all the haters.....
Don't waste your time typing abuses or calling me names as I will not visit this form again.Use that time to study the following few lines again
" Holy Quraan, revealed 1400 years ago, said that, this world will COME TO AN END someday. AND NOW Sceintists are saying the same"

As only QUESTIONS about Islam will be entertained...NOT HATE MESSAGE

Come on back . We don't hate you . You can't preach though . It is against forum rules . Now you can use your beliefs in a descriptive manner when in support of your post . It can be a little tricky sometimes and some might see it as trolling , but hells bells we all have a way of looking like trolls at some point . Even the Mods

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

A hit and run Muslim! Coward.

resurrection Spidey , oh what fun

 

[SciWriter]

A previous life:

In the early 1800’s Muslims on the Barbary Coast were causing trouble, just as they do now, and were attacking U.S. ships. Although the Koran had recommendations of peace within its earlier sutras, it had long been determined that the later sutras on violence superseded the earlier, being thus the more final word. Of course it was all made up anyway, as many humans excelled at that and still do.

Well, anyway, Thomas Jefferson had had enough of these pirates and so he formed the first U.S. Navy to deal with them, putting me in command, and so we more than decimated them.

I chanced upon Mohammed’s secret and final revelations directly from Allah, not via the Angel Gabriel as usual, which had never made it into the Koran since Mohammed had just been assassinated, perhaps because these ending revelations would have to become the new last word.

Unfortunately, they were lost at sea.

They began with ‘Peace…’.

 

[Shadow1]

"arguments agains the existence of god?", "arguments for the existence of god?", "does god exist?", "does god not exist?" ...etc...

Don't you ever get tired of this?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

god rocked my world; therefore god exists.

What does that really mean Lori ? Rock and roll will never die . What does that have to do with the Rock of Ages? What does it have to do with Jesus and the similar rock analogy? Hippies had a belief in something? Do you know what that was ? Hanging on to Black Metal ! Black Metal ! Oh Oh Lori Black Metal .

You know I was so freaked out when the native Black Foot Man Gave Me that red Rock . It just still trips Me out. I don't if any of you out there kind feel the wind of change . Turning Points in your Life . To be aware is that a good thing ? I don't Know cause I don't know what it means not to be . To be able to see information directing your life makes you wonder were it comes from . I can't tell you that ? I don't know what it is ? I know it there . I see it in everything . It is information related . Could be why God is called the word . I saw a post on Fractals today here on S.F. I didn't read it all . One reason I didn't is because of Me event . I was trapped in a world of Mathematical wonder land like I never seen . I tried to explain it to Alphanumatic . It didn't come out so good . It made Me look delusional . I got to tell you I saw something unbelievable . That thread on Fractals hints strongly at what I saw. Now I am not real stupid when it comes to math . Rather practical really . Hell I have to be to make complex roof structures to come out with out a hitch . Also to be able to see in three D is an advantage for builders . We naturally gravitate in that direction . I am not talking about like you see . I am talking about seeing the things behind the curtain . Visualizing where the Valley is and where the hip terminates into a valley, where it hits the side wall , Where roof planes take off and never hit up to ridge you want it to . You got to see this shit in your mind before you can start banging out nails going no were fast . Anyway it is a whole different way of seeing things and unless you do it you don't know what it is like to see in 3D . It be more of a 2D with a 3D perspective . That is the norm . You look at the world as flat . I know you can judge distance and catch a ball and all but that is because of the 3D perspective in your 2D sight .
I got off track , Well I am a run away train with out a track anyway . "Nothing new there " ( borrowed expressions from the Great Chimpkin " )

Oh yeah the Rock . The Rock of Ages . Zimbabwe= The Greathouse of stone . That is what it means . What it tells Me by many forms of information streams is we are all Black first then we are branched out into other expressions of color . Mutations from the original. The original is the African . I come to this conclusion by tracing the Great House in History . You can't buy this stuff in a book . It is scattered information with bits and pieces everywhere . Information from the start of migration of humans . It is persevered in fragmented elements of language . Lori with all your delusional states and corn hole Ideas I am so surprised you came to the Great House and understood the meaning. If everyone could Life , Well Life would improve for all . The doubt that we are all , I mean all live in the same Great House as one would vanish in an instant . It is an easy thing to say I know we all live on the planet and were all human then turn around and say I hate you fuckers. There in is the mystery of the Great house . The Great House Hates no one . The House excepts you and wants abundance of joy for all. I know heart Lori . My heart is your heart cause we live in the Great House . We are the Temple . I understand Dear . Mom The Temple is Holy. The Temple is the promise .
I challenge all to wake up from there dead lives and breath the gift of life . ( For Chimpkin" See The Gift of Life " )