Does God Exist?

[jpappl]

LG,

If you've never considered the philosophical foundations of science I guess it is equally plausible that you have never heard of newton ....

What you are considering is that there is repeatable evidence obtained. The foundations or the reasons given for their belief are based on observation and then proven to be valid to others via evidence. Don't make the two the same. Don't claim religion and science are in the same ball park because they are not.

What is frustrating is that you see it fit to drop this general principle when investigating theistic claims.

Again if only I would open my eyes.

If you think you approach issues of evidence without approaching issues of qualification you are no better than a high school drop out

Once again, if you are so qualified you should be able to provide the evidence. Oh, I forgot you don't have any.

 

[lightgigantic]

Jpappl

“
If you've never considered the philosophical foundations of science I guess it is equally plausible that you have never heard of newton ....
”
What you are considering is that there is repeatable evidence obtained. The foundations or the reasons given for their belief are based on observation and then proven to be valid to others via evidence. Don't make the two the same. Don't claim religion and science are in the same ball park because they are not.

so who does the observing exactly?
janitors?
car mechanics?
CEO managers?
or scientists?
why?

“
What is frustrating is that you see it fit to drop this general principle when investigating theistic claims.
”
Again if only I would open my eyes.

open your eyes to the fact that all claims of knowledge rest upon specific qualifications, yes

“
If you think you approach issues of evidence without approaching issues of qualification you are no better than a high school drop out
”
Once again, if you are so qualified you should be able to provide the evidence. Oh, I forgot you don't have any.

and once again, discussions of evidence without discussions of relevant criteria for perceiving such evidence is no more valid than the wild blatherings of a high school drop out

 

[disease]

...there is no evidence for anybody to justify the belief in such

But there is. You're breathing and thinking, aren't you? You can see and hear, etc?

That's all the evidence I personally need - the fact I can see and hear, and I'm 'aware' - for the existence of something (call it what you like). Some people call a certain awareness "knowing that God exists", I call it "knowing myself exists". It's a word for something; if there's a word, then logically it was invented as a name for something. However, awareness doesn't 'need' logic.

I have used the troll in the forest as an example of a claim that nobody should believe without evidence. Do you believe in trolls ? Is it not reasonable to expect that if I make such a claim I can provide evidence ?

But we're talking about your experience (as far as I'm concerned), not about seeing a strange animal. Do you believe that being awake, is a strange experience?

 

[Saquist]

Saquist,



The question of where it all started and how it all ends is valid. However, explain a specific as to how there is a direct implication of an intelligent designer.



So would you suggest that there is no life elsewhere in the universe ?
Do you believe that you know the singular path to the one god ?

I would have to know what you consider a "direct implication" and is there really such a thing as to..."directly imply" anything. I ask because the phrase has a certain hit or miss quality, sort of a vagueness of speech. While I use the phrase it has a specific meaning to me in the form of relatable instances of coincidences that would have an unlikely hood of occuring sucessively in order for the universe to pan out as it has. So forgive my use of the term but I must ask what do you think it means.

You don't have to believe in anything. You only have 2 choices:
1. Either you conclude X is true.
or
2. You have not arrived at a conclusion.

There is not other choice. And choice #1 is not a necessity.

Have you not actually said the same thing I have?
I said either or, as pretains to coming to a conclusion.
You said the choice is between a conclusion and no conclusion.

What's the difference? Am I wrong if I start counting from "1"? or is it more "right" to begin counting from "0"?
Is not inconclusive implied?

 

[lixluke]

You stated that you have to believe in something eternal as far as I remember. I said this was wrong. You can be inconclusive on the matter. There is nothing else in terms of human observation. In any matter no matter what you only have 2 choices.

1. Either you conclude X is true.
or
2. You have not arrived at a conclusion.


Hence the poll.
A & B - includes those who fall under #1.
B & C - includes those who fall under #2.

Am I mistaken. Are you saying something else?

 

[Saquist]

Am I mistaken. Are you saying something else?

Lets find out.

Answer the following questions.

Where did you come from?
Where did mankind come from?
Where did the Earth come from?
Where did the Universe come from?

If the first question is the only question you can answer then you're undecided. (Inconclusive) In order to come to a conclusion you ...will...have to accept one infinite concept or another.

My post addressed the available conclusions not the inconclusive.

 

[jpappl]

Saquist,

I would have to know what you consider a "direct implication" and is there really such a thing as to..."directly imply" anything. I ask because the phrase has a certain hit or miss quality, sort of a vagueness of speech. While I use the phrase it has a specific meaning to me in the form of relatable instances of coincidences that would have an unlikely hood of occuring sucessively in order for the universe to pan out as it has. So forgive my use of the term but I must ask what do you think it means.

As you stated, you used the term, but I understand it as you implied, that without the hand of a god or supreme being, these circumstances of life as we know it could not have arrived.

So I asked for an example. Maybe you could provide some specifics.

Also please answer my follow ups.

So would you suggest that there is no life elsewhere in the universe ?
Do you believe that you know the singular path to the one god ?

It's important for me to better understand where you are coming from.

 

[jpappl]

LG

and once again, discussions of evidence without discussions of relevant criteria for perceiving such evidence is no more valid than the wild blatherings of a high school drop out

Which is what your above statement is.

What is evident is that you have nothing. I am done with you because you are dishonest. You are unwilling to accept you have no proof, and are relying on faith in and of itself. Just admit it and move on.

 

[jpappl]

Disease,

That's all the evidence I personally need - the fact I can see and hear, and I'm 'aware' - for the existence of something (call it what you like). Some people call a certain awareness "knowing that God exists", I call it "knowing myself exists". It's a word for something; if there's a word, then logically it was invented as a name for something. However, awareness doesn't 'need' logic.

Unlike LightG, this is more reasonable because it begs the question without claiming the answer. We have or should have all asked ourselves. Where did it all begin, why are we here etc etc. But being aware and knowing god exists are different things.

Believing in a god and believing in the only path and the specifics of god are quite different as well, would you not agree ?

But we're talking about your experience (as far as I'm concerned), not about seeing a strange animal. Do you believe that being awake, is a strange experience?

Yes, and I could easily see the world in all it's magesty and beauty and wonder and go, wow there is no way this could have just happened on it's own.

The evidence points farther and farther away from any religious version of how we came to be. If it did not, it would be more believable. So are the texts wrong ? Doesn't that throw the whole theory of their versions of God out the window ?

It still doesn't answer the bigger question of how it all began, the universe that is, but it does answer that the religions are wrong.

So once again, to believe in god is one thing, to claim to know the only path is another. If you claim to know the path I ask for evidence, which you do not have.

 

[swivel]

the ol sci atheist adage
"when all else fails, ad-hom"

I just had to peek at your reply because I suspected that I would find exactly this.

Please note that I stand by my original claim that you are not an intelligent person, and not worth reasoning with. I will support that claim in this post with evidence, and I do so for the enlightenment of our spectators and not because I believe that there is any hope for you to become someone with average intelligence.

My post was not an ad-hom. Yours was. The fact that you use a bit of Latin without understanding it demonstrates your lack of intelligence. Intelligent people only talk about what they know, otherwise they seek knowledge until they do.

An ad-hominem attack is not an insult. It is a fallacious argument whereby the reply is directed at some facet of the speaker of the original claim with the intent of undermining the substance of their claim while ignoring the claim itself.

When I call you a moron, that is NOT an ad-hominem attack. It is a claim. If I back up that claim with observations (as I did before and do now) it can be a well-founded claim.

When you dismiss my claim by calling into question my methods, YOU are performing an ad-hominem fallacy. You have ignored my claims and attack me (incorrectly, which is another fallacy, and by using fancy terms as if they carry weight, which is yet another fallacy). In one small post you have made three logical errors, proving my point in both posts: You are a moron.

The choice is now yours. You may brave on through life not knowing what an ad hominem fallacy is and continue using it incorrectly (guaranteeing that every time you do so, YOU will be guilty of an ad-hominem) and mounting up evidence of your idiocy for anyone with half a brain to note. OR you could go spend the next five minutes doing some research, realize that you are wrong and I am right, and alter your future behavior.

The fact that you will always choose the former over the latter, refusing your future self the ability to be more knowledgeable than your current self, is the reason you are a detriment to this forum.

That you would rather be obviously wrong and ignorant, instead of choosing to better yourself and admit a mistake, displays a psychosis that I am not qualified to diagnose. But you should see someone who can.

You are probably thinking that this entire post is one giant ad hominem. You are incorrect. The claim is that you are unintelligent, not that some other argument you made is incorrect because you are unintelligent. Dismissing my claim as an "ad hom" IS an ad hominem fallacy. You would have attacked me while ignoring my claim in the attempt to undermine my claim.

I have no doubt you can not see this, but everyone else can. Good day.

 

[Saquist]

Saquist,



As you stated, you used the term, but I understand it as you implied, that without the hand of a god or supreme being, these circumstances of life as we know it could not have arrived.

So I asked for an example. Maybe you could provide some specifics.

Also please answer my follow ups.

So would you suggest that there is no life elsewhere in the universe ?
Do you believe that you know the singular path to the one god ?

It's important for me to better understand where you are coming from.

Excellent, then if you understand what I mean by Implied Creation, then you've heard some of the arguments from the problems of life from lifelessness and while there is many a theory there is no definitive answer to the conundrums of figuring it out.

But it doesn't stop there.
Look at the universe and it's current state. The Big Bang is no longer a valid argument since it's initial logic was that of balistic forensics. Since it's obvious that the universe is expanding faster rather than slowing down then we are left with a shorter concept of the age of the universe.

The structure of the universe is strange having huge bubbles that is also inconsistent with the randomized distrubtion of matter.

The presence of matter in greater abundance to antimatter also contradicts the big bang.

The balance of energy and matter also defies that theory. But what we've learned from disproving the big bang is that an unlikely balance does exist not just in life but in the universe as a whole, between gravitational forces and the Electromagnetic force. Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. , because atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms—meaning no life.

 

[disease]

So once again, to believe in god is one thing, to claim to know the only path is another. If you claim to know the path I ask for evidence, which you do not have.

Hmm.
To believe you can breathe is one thing, claiming you can breathe is another.
If you claim to know how to breathe, I can ask for evidence. But the evidence isn't something you have, because I have it. I can breathe too.

Simple, or simplistic?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG



Which is what your above statement is.

What is evident is that you have nothing. I am done with you because you are dishonest. You are unwilling to accept you have no proof, and are relying on faith in and of itself. Just admit it and move on.

If you think you can decry a field of knowledge by avoiding a discussion of the relevant qualifications in the field, you can decry anything

 

[lightgigantic]

I just had to peek at your reply because I suspected that I would find exactly this.

Please note that I stand by my original claim that you are not an intelligent person, and not worth reasoning with. I will support that claim in this post with evidence, and I do so for the enlightenment of our spectators and not because I believe that there is any hope for you to become someone with average intelligence.

My post was not an ad-hom. Yours was. The fact that you use a bit of Latin without understanding it demonstrates your lack of intelligence. Intelligent people only talk about what they know, otherwise they seek knowledge until they do.

An ad-hominem attack is not an insult. It is a fallacious argument whereby the reply is directed at some facet of the speaker of the original claim with the intent of undermining the substance of their claim while ignoring the claim itself.

When I call you a moron, that is NOT an ad-hominem attack. It is a claim. If I back up that claim with observations (as I did before and do now) it can be a well-founded claim.

When you dismiss my claim by calling into question my methods, YOU are performing an ad-hominem fallacy. You have ignored my claims and attack me (incorrectly, which is another fallacy, and by using fancy terms as if they carry weight, which is yet another fallacy). In one small post you have made three logical errors, proving my point in both posts: You are a moron.

The choice is now yours. You may brave on through life not knowing what an ad hominem fallacy is and continue using it incorrectly (guaranteeing that every time you do so, YOU will be guilty of an ad-hominem) and mounting up evidence of your idiocy for anyone with half a brain to note. OR you could go spend the next five minutes doing some research, realize that you are wrong and I am right, and alter your future behavior.

The fact that you will always choose the former over the latter, refusing your future self the ability to be more knowledgeable than your current self, is the reason you are a detriment to this forum.

That you would rather be obviously wrong and ignorant, instead of choosing to better yourself and admit a mistake, displays a psychosis that I am not qualified to diagnose. But you should see someone who can.

You are probably thinking that this entire post is one giant ad hominem. You are incorrect. The claim is that you are unintelligent, not that some other argument you made is incorrect because you are unintelligent. Dismissing my claim as an "ad hom" IS an ad hominem fallacy. You would have attacked me while ignoring my claim in the attempt to undermine my claim.

I have no doubt you can not see this, but everyone else can. Good day.

oh brother .....
wouldn't mind your whining half as much if you could stick to PM'ing or even just a few lines
:shrug:

 

[jpappl]

LG,

If you think you can decry a field of knowledge by avoiding a discussion of the relevant qualifications in the field, you can decry anything

Meaningless. Again, what are the qualifications for knowing God exists ?
How about providing some evidence.

How about you cut your arm off and pray to god to have in grow again.

After you do that and it grows again, then do it again in front of the rest of us so we can witness the event. That would suffice as proof.

 

[jpappl]

Disease,

Hmm.
To believe you can breathe is one thing, claiming you can breathe is another.
If you claim to know how to breathe, I can ask for evidence. But the evidence isn't something you have, because I have it. I can breathe too.

Simple, or simplistic?

I know I can breathe. I no longer believe. It is a fact.

Why would you ask for evidence when you yourself can breathe ?

We all can breathe, if we stopped we would die.

So what's your point other than you BELIEVE it is god given.

Do you believe this god has given life throughout the universe or only offered the earth with this gift ?

 

[jpappl]

Excellent, then if you understand what I mean by Implied Creation, then you've heard some of the arguments from the problems of life from lifelessness and while there is many a theory there is no definitive answer to the conundrums of figuring it out.

But it doesn't stop there.
Look at the universe and it's current state. The Big Bang is no longer a valid argument since it's initial logic was that of balistic forensics. Since it's obvious that the universe is expanding faster rather than slowing down then we are left with a shorter concept of the age of the universe.

The structure of the universe is strange having huge bubbles that is also inconsistent with the randomized distrubtion of matter.

The presence of matter in greater abundance to antimatter also contradicts the big bang.

The balance of energy and matter also defies that theory. But what we've learned from disproving the big bang is that an unlikely balance does exist not just in life but in the universe as a whole, between gravitational forces and the Electromagnetic force. Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. , because atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms—meaning no life.

And you think that our current state of knowledge is the end all and be all. The big bang theory is a theory, it is not considered the answer to all and we shouldn't stop expanding on the knowledge base to understand how it all happened.

To say that we have to have an answer even though we don't have an answer and therefore claim God did it, is not only ludicrous but very self important.

This is the failure of humankind. From the fields of science to religion. We want to have answers to those things that we can not know at this time, and when the answers do not exist, we either claim to know that which we do not, or claim that this is far as we are going to get.

10 generations from now, hopefully if we don't kill oursleves off. We will have a far better understanding of what, why, who and how.

Or do you believe our generation is so important that we should make it up for them and tell them to stop the quest for knowledge.

 

[disease]

being aware and knowing god exists are different things.

Maybe. To me, being aware is the same thing as knowing that "I" exist, therefore I'm aware that "God" exists, because I'm aware (of myself, which is - you guessed it)...

I know I can breathe. I no longer believe. It is a fact.

I know that too, It's still a fact and I still believe it. I'd say you still do too.

Why would you ask for evidence when you yourself can breathe ?

I know I can do it, I can observe you going through the same motions, but how can I know you're doing what I do?
To me, the question of showing someone evidence, of being 'aware of God's existence', is the same kind of evidence. Evidence is personal, but we can try to relate, say, what breathing, or seeing or hearing is like.
Try describing Beethoven's 5th, or The Stone's "Honky Tonk Woman", to someone who's never heard them.

We all can breathe, if we stopped we would die.

I guess. How come you believe this, though? I give up breathing all the time - it still 'happens' though (it's called a yoga technique).

So what's your point other than you BELIEVE it is god given.

I think it's the same point. Our awareness, is also "God-given". Therefore we are aware (of something).

Do you believe this god has given life throughout the universe or only offered the earth with this gift ?

I don't know that I can ever know that. I know it happens to be the case, here on planet earth, though.

 

[lixluke]

Lets find out.

Answer the following questions.

Where did you come from?
Where did mankind come from?
Where did the Earth come from?
Where did the Universe come from?

If the first question is the only question you can answer then you're undecided. (Inconclusive) In order to come to a conclusion you ...will...have to accept one infinite concept or another.

My post addressed the available conclusions not the inconclusive.

If you answer the question, then you are not undecided. If I have a conclusion about any of those questions, then I can sumbit my answer to that question. Thus, I cannot be considered inconclusive if on any question that I provide an answer to.

If conclusion, then answer the question by stating your conclusion. If no conclusion, then no answer. Those are the only 2 possible states anybody can have on each or any question. What is your point?

 

[jpappl]

Disease,

I don't know that I can ever know that. I know it happens to be the case, here on planet earth, though.

This is the important question for me. That the idea of god is represented by one religion ? In other words, that you know the path, the only way.

Based on your interpretation it does not appear so. Which I can accept as a belief. But it is not knowledge nor is my belief that there is no god in any religious interpretation, knowledge, only belief.