I'm an atheist, a true convict atheist, I've come to a stable knowledge where I understand that God is a creation of man to value life, goodness and consciousness, but, we are all the same species, and as 60% or more of my species doesn't share the same truth that I found, I would like to make the following question, to all those who believe in the existence of a supreme omnipresent being that created and rules the universe, I would like to know all the arguments and partial truths you have to aprove this theory to be the Truth, this thread is not a discussion of atheists and theists, is only a post of arguments for us to better understand in what consists this two opposite theories, post your arguments and opinions
arguments to defend the theory of God?
- Thread starter Ronhrin
- Start date
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Ronhrin said:
Proof of God rests in the Supernatural, and the Supernatural in the Saints and Miraculous Apparitions which are considered to be the Revelations of God.
Atheists make the mistake of consulting Philosophy regarding Religion. But what would they know? Religion does not source from philosophy or philosophers who have ever been largely ignored, at least as in the role of First Movers. Philosophers may jump in to explain or elaborate, but they cannot offer any proof in and of themselves or their thinking.
Religion is empirical. Find a Saint and some Miracles and you have found God. Instead of re-plowing the same old logical arguments against God and Religion, go back and study the actual data.
Atheists accuse the Religions of foisting fraudulent miracles upon the public. That is a naive view which only a little bit of study would dispell. Most investigations into the Miraculous, even by Religious Institutions, are biased toward denying the Miraculous. Why? Because even Religions would rather maintain a steady Status Quo. The advent of Saints takes some of the lustre from the Ordinary Religious Leaders who are jealous of their authority and prestige. So it is no small thing when a Bishop or a Brahmin bows down before a Miraculous Saint, who only diminishes them in comparison.
Anyway, there have been hundreds of Saints and thousands of Miracles even in recent modern History. You don't need to die and go to Heaven to discover God. One Saint and just one miracle would prove God. And we have so much more than just one.
Leo, every argument you made can be turned on itself. For instance, "Proof of God rests in the Supernatural,..." But the supernatural in your context, by definition, cannot be proved.
To accept the supernatural in the absence of proof requires faith. A personal faith is the only argument a theist can offer as to the existence of a god. Using faith, a theist can accept coincidence or yet-to-be-discovered principles as miracles.
To accept the supernatural in the absence of proof requires faith. A personal faith is the only argument a theist can offer as to the existence of a god. Using faith, a theist can accept coincidence or yet-to-be-discovered principles as miracles.
the big bang is a flawed and incomplete "theory" to explain the beginnining of existence, and I personally believe it's very bad explained, as I once read in a forum, the inflaction theory (big bang) is the only horse racing in a horse race, but there's a lot of better horses out there that will soon enter this race
that I am, but I honestly believe that great part of the science that we take for granted today is nothing more than a burocratic amount of ideas stuck in time, sold for a society that doesn't really care about this problems and take everything for granted. some people close to me don't really care about my ideas/theories/truths, whatever you want to call it, but nevertheless I will say my opinions about existence, the universe had never begun (in the sense that it came from nothing into existence), everything that composes the universe, from our know particles to all the unknown/exotic groups of matter and energy had always existed, and the universe had always crossed several levels of existence, even that sometimes my theories seems to challenge some of the theories already accepted by all the science comunity, I have a say that I believe sometimes some people forget, we are within the universe, we are a little insignificant point somewhere in the greatness of the universe, and in this situation, we can miss understand some of the features and status of the universe. does a really very small fish within the pafific ocean trully know is ocean?
and what is this supernatural?Leo Volont said:
everything in our Universe would have to be Natural dont you think?
would it really?why?
what if its some highly advanced Aliens experimenting with humans much like people do with laboratory animals.
do you?
James Randi has a million $$ to give away to anyone who can make a miracle happen,I say go for it!
www.randi.org
David F. said:
holy crap,do you know what science is?????from
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Etymology
From Latin scientia,knowledge, noun formed from present participle sciens, knowing, from verb scire, know.
[edit]
Noun
science, plural sciences
Sometimes uncountable
The act and embodiment of performing the scientific method in order to discover empirically proven truth.
Organized body of knowledge; any particular art or discipline
A study of a particular discipline, usually involving measuring something, prevention, or causation.
one part in an endlessly changing universe
MaskHellRaiser
Registered Member
Agree the Bog Bang theory explain how the planets, stars and etc was created, and not how everything (universe) was created. But back to the topic, u want argument to defend theory of god. What do u call the perfectness around u, that air comes ot ur body and goes out as CO2 just to b turned back as breathable oxygen by the plants and at the same time giving them food and energy? What about the perfectness of the position of earth from the sun, a little closer we would burn out and a little far we would freeze to death. I sometimes just can't beleive that they r ppl out there that can't beleive in God or the Creator.
Sorry if there is typos, i heard that i need typing lesson already.
Sorry if there is typos, i heard that i need typing lesson already.
Science is based on observations. Observations alone only show the effects not the cause of any particular event or phenomenon. Science does a good job finding how things work but has a problem with figuring out why things work. What is the underlining cause? What causes laws of physics? What caused the Big Bang? What caused anything to happen in the first place? Science always hits a dead end when they try to find the ultimate or first cause.
One of the most outspoken atheists for years Dr. Anthony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature".
I agree with him. It is a fundamental law of nature that there must be a cause in order for there to be an effect. If there was nothing before the big bang or whatever caused the universe to come into being, then there could have never been anything to begin with. Something cannot come out of nothing. It must have taken an intelligent architect to get it all started.
To deny this is to make assumptions that are not based on science. Since you cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist then it in intellectually dishonest to proclaim His not existence based on unproven methods. Atheists do not believe in God. But you cannot base science on a belief or unbelief. Truth is not based on a belief it is simply the truth. The truth exists if anyone believes in it or not. A tenet of science is to not dismiss anything until it can be conclusively proven otherwise. It is a direct violation of this tenet to summarily deny God without having proof to back it up. In other words, until Science can conclusively prove there is no God then it cannot with any authority come to that conclusion.
One of the most outspoken atheists for years Dr. Anthony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature".
I agree with him. It is a fundamental law of nature that there must be a cause in order for there to be an effect. If there was nothing before the big bang or whatever caused the universe to come into being, then there could have never been anything to begin with. Something cannot come out of nothing. It must have taken an intelligent architect to get it all started.
To deny this is to make assumptions that are not based on science. Since you cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist then it in intellectually dishonest to proclaim His not existence based on unproven methods. Atheists do not believe in God. But you cannot base science on a belief or unbelief. Truth is not based on a belief it is simply the truth. The truth exists if anyone believes in it or not. A tenet of science is to not dismiss anything until it can be conclusively proven otherwise. It is a direct violation of this tenet to summarily deny God without having proof to back it up. In other words, until Science can conclusively prove there is no God then it cannot with any authority come to that conclusion.
oscarmitre
Registered Senior Member
Brutus1964 said:
Yes science is based on observation. Observations generation theories as to to "why". But science also uses methods to test those theories and replication and prediction are important. If a theory doesn't allow replication and prediction then it is dumped. Science is also about incremental knowledge. I'm sorry if science hasn't figured out the origins of the universe yet but that it hasn't yet done so is no grounds for dismissal as you have apparently done so in such a cavalier fashion.
Flew is a philosopher not a physicist. When he explains string theory to me in a manner that would do credit to a quantum phyicist I will listen to him. Until then his pronouncements on this carry no weight.
The laws of nature are discoverable by humans through the scientific method which you have already trashed. Now to move into Flew's area - "something" and "nothing" are concepts which are understood by humans. They are limiting, they are limiting in that we can only understand them as abstract concepts. Therefore any assumptions based on them ' Something cannot come out of nothing" are limited. Your statements are meaningless.
Science can only disprove a theory based on replication, falsification and prediction. It can only prove a positive, not a negative. It can't prove God doesn't exist any more than theology proves God does exist. Science, as you've pointed out, doesn't rely on belief or unbelief, it relies on objective observation. its method is empirical. Science doesn't dismiss anything unless it can't be replicated or predicted, it isn't interested in belief. Knowledge is tentative in science. Belief isn't knowledge, belief is simply faith without evidence. Your attack on science fails.
How does this post pertain to the existence of God? If all time exists simultaneously and is only differentiated by a point of reference then there must be a supreme intelligence that can provide a point of reference for all time periods past, present and future simultaneously. This can only be achieved by a super-intelligence that has access to all time interations. This can only be provided by God.
Last edited: