God does exist.
- Thread starter Daiel Hegarty
- Start date
Hence you are unreasonable. You use circular reasoning to defend your position. Circular reasoning is not reasoning at all. It's a thought loop that you're apparently not equiped to comprehend. You make the most arrogant of statement possible "I tell you God is." You think you have authority? You'll tell ME what is? That statement SICKENS me. It's seething with arrogance.
That is correct.
Okay, I won't bother for the sake of your argument.
No, it was a sex act by my biological parents that created me.
Well, it's not reason that makes the trees grow... but one may use reason to study the tree and find out why it grows.
Originally posted by Imperial
All of the people who don't believe in God will find out when they die. If you end up in Hell, then you would wish that you have believed, but if you don't end up anywhere, then your theory is right, until then, this controversy will continue now and in the future.
What happens if I am a Nepalnese living on the Himalayas and have never heard of God? And which God is the right one to believe in?
Kimo,
If we follow physics where we observe the laws of conservation of energy, where nothing is ever created or destroyed and that matter and energy can be interchanged without any net loss, then we can easily see that matter and energy must have always existed.
Here we have a basis for an infinite universe.
What is your basis for asserting that a God has always existed?
Why? This is just pure imaginative speculation. All you have done is introduced an unnecessary level of complexity by suggesting a god.
If we follow physics where we observe the laws of conservation of energy, where nothing is ever created or destroyed and that matter and energy can be interchanged without any net loss, then we can easily see that matter and energy must have always existed.
Here we have a basis for an infinite universe.
What is your basis for asserting that a God has always existed?
Do I need authority to state a fact? Let not my statement of fact sicken you. I can't comprehend? Who needs to have everything in a neat little box called "reason" in order to comprehend their existence? I have no problem with comprehension.
What is this thing with you and authority? Is that the "reason" you can't believe in God - because you have a problem with authority? Here's the problem with reason. One persons reason is not another’s. You base you view of the world on your reasoning. This world is not based on your reasoning but on the reasoning and design of He Who created it.
Ok - let's debate, shall we. Give me one reason why you can't believe in a creator.
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
Ummm, you need to maybe provide proof to support your alleged fact.
If you can comprehend your existence why not explain it to everyone? God is, is not an explaination.
I have no problem with the idea of "God" but your arguement is completely invalid.
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
I got this one Cris. I'll make it simple for dkb218. Here goes.....
Physics is
"If we follow physics where we observe the laws of conservation of energy, where nothing is ever created or destroyed and that matter and energy can be interchanged without any net loss, then we can easily see that matter and energy must have always existed."
----------------------
The First and Second Law of Thermodynamics would contradict this flawed speculation.
><>
----------------------
The First and Second Law of Thermodynamics would contradict this flawed speculation.
><>
Imperial,
Without any substantial evidence all claims for all gods are equally speculative.
BTW - welcome to sciforums.
I suspect you mean that there are many different definitions of gods. You really only believe there is a single god.
How does one know which definition is a true one? Each theistic religion claims as you do that their god is the only one true god. What makes your claim any different from theirs?
Without any substantial evidence all claims for all gods are equally speculative.
So what happened to justice? If an Amazon native or some such primitive person actually leads a superbly moral life by anyone’s standard, then why would he be condemned to an eternity of torture because no missionaries found him? Wouldn’t such a god be just an evil monster for doing that?
How can you be sure, have you met everyone?
BTW - welcome to sciforums.
"But more importantly are there any laws or evidence that support the speculation that a god has always existed?"
-----------------------
There is a bevy of evidence. Whether you choose to accept that evidence, or not, is the question. If you say there is no evidence for the existence of God, then we should proceed to see if your criteria are reasonable and your methodology of examination is objective.
"Without any substantial evidence all claims for all gods are equally speculative."
--------------------------
Once again, what constitutes evidence? Does evidence have to meet your requirements to be considered sufficient evidence? Of course not. Surely you would not go so far as to say that evidence must meet the demands of the scientific method because, as you know, there are things that exist that are outside the boundaries of scientific scrutiny and cannot be quantified, tested or put in a jar.
><>
-----------------------
There is a bevy of evidence. Whether you choose to accept that evidence, or not, is the question. If you say there is no evidence for the existence of God, then we should proceed to see if your criteria are reasonable and your methodology of examination is objective.
"Without any substantial evidence all claims for all gods are equally speculative."
--------------------------
Once again, what constitutes evidence? Does evidence have to meet your requirements to be considered sufficient evidence? Of course not. Surely you would not go so far as to say that evidence must meet the demands of the scientific method because, as you know, there are things that exist that are outside the boundaries of scientific scrutiny and cannot be quantified, tested or put in a jar.
><>
inspector,
No that’s not what I said. The subject was infinity. Specifically I said “are there any laws or evidence that support the speculation that a god has always existed?". I’m prepared to accept for the sake of this speculation that God exists.
OK then what is your evidence for an infinite god?
"No that’s not what I said. The subject was infinity. Specifically I said “are there any laws or evidence that support the speculation that a god has always existed?". I’m prepared to accept for the sake of this speculation that God exists."
------------------------
Oh, okay. Infinity. ;-)
It is good that you are prepared to accept for the sake of this speculation that God exists because it is mere speculation that infinity exists (if you are referring to there being no beginning or end to the universe). However, you are contradicting the laws of nature when you assume that there was no beginning, and thus, are simply offering a subjective theory which necessitates an absoluteness of scope which you are incapable of verifying. Hence, I can equally claim that there was a beginning and that God caused it, since God is outside of boundaries of time.
><>
------------------------
Oh, okay. Infinity. ;-)
It is good that you are prepared to accept for the sake of this speculation that God exists because it is mere speculation that infinity exists (if you are referring to there being no beginning or end to the universe). However, you are contradicting the laws of nature when you assume that there was no beginning, and thus, are simply offering a subjective theory which necessitates an absoluteness of scope which you are incapable of verifying. Hence, I can equally claim that there was a beginning and that God caused it, since God is outside of boundaries of time.
><>
French... ?
I'm really tired of addressing the same matters on two different threads.
From the what's up y'all poll
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Now this Thread
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
If you think otherwise that is quite bumptious and arrogant of you.
. Another dogmatic assertion - from an atheist point of view.
I'm really tired of addressing the same matters on two different threads.
From the what's up y'all poll
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
You were successful.
You realised the implications if you were to practice this. You stated that I insulted you. No further corroboration needed.
If you insist. [Oxford dic.] Govern - 2. control or influence;Powerful - having power; Power - 1. The ability to do something, 2. The ability to influence people or events... etc.; Infinite - 1. Limitless in space or size.; Infinity Math. - A number greater than any quantity or countable number.Now If I were to say that the laws of nature govern God that would be a contradiction of his omnipotent nature.
I don't know. It all depends on the state of your brain. But yeah, if you trust your senses, yeah. If you woke up one morning and was seeing evrything in doubles would you conclude that everyone and thing found it's/their long lost twin overnight? I merely trust my senses, I just don't see how I can 'believe in' them.
I didn't say it would be the hand of God. I just indicated that it is possible. There is no conclusive evidence to illustrate otherwise.
A possibility is enough for me.
You misunderstood. What's up y'all didn't use it as proof of God, he was just illustrating some of the notions people use to dismiss divine intervention
Speak for yourself. Some of your colleagues are still trying.
Thus you admit there is evidence but not 'hard' evidence. Irrefragable evidence is very difficult to come by - in any context. A probability of God's existence cannot be formulated - there are no universally consensual points of reference from which we can illustrate it
Now this Thread
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
If our minds were closed to God we wouldn't believe in Him. You are right French - A closed mind is the essence of ignorance. 'All a true christian' will never accept a 'possibility that God does not exist' [faith]. We know [faith] that God exists. It is stated in the bible that with God anything is possible Mathhew 19:26 - With God all things are possible, thus, in essence, the belief in God has opened my mind to a multitude of possibilities - from the tau neutrino to dark matter to angels - the bible doesn't discredit any of these. So do those who believe in God truly close their minds or open them? [rhetorical] And anyway who said a close minded person was necessarily ignorant? We all have our degrees of ignorance. I'm sure their are many atheists and christians who have more knowledge than you and I do.
If you think otherwise that is quite bumptious and arrogant of you.
You just don't get it. To me God not existing is less likely than me existing now in a matrix [Keanu Reeves computer world] - no it's just impossible [sounds arrogant yeah but let's say it's a selfless comment - you wouldn't understand]. The ultimate truth has no error. We see things from two totally different perspectives and you just can't accept it. You have to accept the possibility of God's existence and non-existence to preserve your self declared pragmatism and open-mindedness. You seem to think I have been arguing belief on my part. That's what you cannot comprehend about a true Christian - He doesn't assume God's existence rests on what he believes. Hope you get it now.
I said be careful French. Such a state opens your mind to insanity. I prefer not to ask myself questions like "Am I really here?"; "Do I exist?" - no way - how can you know if you exist or not? [even this question is ridiculous] I think the crazies of the future will be wayward logicians.
.True faith. It doesn't fire a nueron in my brain whether you think it is arrogance.
Again, faith. That's why some pragmatics state faith is foolsih, in which light they cannot completely accept anything at all as absolutely true. Every human fact and proof and evidence that is accepted is based on faith - no two meanings - one word - pure and simple faith.
You ask again I state again - faith.
To say it again - that is like asking me why do I think I exist - faith
As you said yourself 2000 years ago many things were impossoble
Nope. I know God exists through faith
You call it a sixth sense. O.k. Christians call it soul and the Spirit of God.
That's your dogmatic assumption - if we were to call the soul and spirit senses.
How can you state that and apparently know nothing of his nature. Bumptious, arrogant (and replete with ignorance) dogmatism? Yet elsewhere you imply you trust them completely. Here we see Christians, one has never experienced the presence of God.
Psalm 118:8 - C.E.V. - It is better to trust the Lord for protection than to trust anyone else. - N.I.V. - It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man. Man's reasoning skills are limited to what he knows - which, from history, we can assume is not much. Please indicate my errant resoning skills or else I wil have to dismiss that as another ignorant and dogmatic retort.
Knowledge is not truth my friend. Science and logic are fallable. Hopefully by now you would have gotten the idea. And here is another dogmatic assertion.
And you call yourself open-minded?
. Another dogmatic assertion - from an atheist point of view.
Here is that inherrent dogmatism - you assuming that my mind cannot comprehend a universe without a God. Can your mind comprehend a universe with a God? You state you think so. Does it make you accept the existence of God? Nope. Do you think people argue when they think they are wrong about something? Quite naiive. No true theist can accept their god's non-existence as a possibility. You should understand the nature of those you are arguing with before you argue with them French my friend. If you don't you'll just be uttering gibberish most of the times. Or is it that you don't want them to understand your point of view? Do you just want to dogmatically flout your ideas and they'll accept them like you are some infinite authority? Hope not.
Last edited:
inspector,
Now can you show a method that is superior to the scientific method and acceptable to everyone?
Anything where there is little doubt. For example direct observation of the sun is good evidence that the sun exists. The evidence for the extraordinary claim for the creator of the universe should at least be as obvious.
The scientific method is the best and accepted mechanism for the determination of truth and knowledge. It has consistently proven its value. Any other method you choose will be inferior. If the scientific method cannot verify your claims then either your claims are false or no conclusion can be reached.
Now can you show a method that is superior to the scientific method and acceptable to everyone?
"Anything where there is little doubt. For example direct observation of the sun is good evidence that the sun exists. The evidence for the extraordinary claim for the creator of the universe should at least be as obvious."
----------------------
Evidence does not have to be as direct as seeing, touching, etc. to be classified as evidence. You cannot perceive me with your senses, however, you assume I exist, right? On what evidence do you base your assumption? Faith?
"The scientific method is the best and accepted mechanism for the determination of truth and knowledge. It has consistently proven its value. Any other method you choose will be inferior.
-----------------------
The scientific method is based on circular reasoning. Can the scientific method determine the truth and knowledge of the scientific method? Of course not. Once again, there are things that exist that cannot be ascertained by logic and experiment.
"If the scientific method cannot verify your claims then either your claims are false or no conclusion can be reached."
-------------------------
Another possibility would be that some truths lie beyond the scope of the scientific method.
Gotta go for now. Thanks to all for the conversation.
><>
----------------------
Evidence does not have to be as direct as seeing, touching, etc. to be classified as evidence. You cannot perceive me with your senses, however, you assume I exist, right? On what evidence do you base your assumption? Faith?
"The scientific method is the best and accepted mechanism for the determination of truth and knowledge. It has consistently proven its value. Any other method you choose will be inferior.
-----------------------
The scientific method is based on circular reasoning. Can the scientific method determine the truth and knowledge of the scientific method? Of course not. Once again, there are things that exist that cannot be ascertained by logic and experiment.
"If the scientific method cannot verify your claims then either your claims are false or no conclusion can be reached."
-------------------------
Another possibility would be that some truths lie beyond the scope of the scientific method.
Gotta go for now. Thanks to all for the conversation.
><>