God does exist.

[MarcAC]

Faith!

Originally posted by Frencheneesz

Limitless influence implys that he does everything... and also that he could create a rock that he couldn't lift. But it also implies that he could lift any rock. ... He cannot change the fact that he can change (ALMOST) anything, and he also cannot change his nature.

Limitless influence doesn't mean He does everything it means He can influence everything. Let's say God is smart - Would He create a rock He couldn't lift? And that aside, let's look at it this way, There is no rock He can create which He cannot lift. His nature is such that He can do/change anything. He limits some of His abilities. What do you define as His 'nature' there? His nature constitutes infinite understanding, knowledge, power, love, goodness. He can change his nature, but why would He?

If you want to dispute that god would have to be governed by natural laws, then describe to me an intermedium between ORDER and RANDOMNESS. In that description I might either find your way of thinking or (much less probable) that I might finnaly understand why you believe.

No intermedium is necessary. God controls the 'natural laws' - enough said. What He consitutes is something above our ideas of order and randomness [based on natural laws] - obviously. One can look out into the universe and see order in the form of stars and galaxies or disorder in the form of stars and galaxies. All depends on perspective.

This is to say that in YOUR mind, god has a higher probabilty, and I want to know why.

In mine and most theists minds God is a certainty.

We argue possibility

I strongly believe he would disagree if he were here.

The guy was presenting a model of the arguments which atheists use to refute God's existence, thus,

ARGUMENT FROM "CHANCE"..
(1) My aunt had incurable cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these modern medical treatments, but my aunt is still sick and was given few days to live.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God dont exists, and her cancer dissappeared by "chance".

He was making fun of atheists and He did pretty well.

Only mathmatical probabilities can be formulated.

O.k.

There is a probability that could be formulated given that we all have the same reasoning and knowlege (which is impossible) if someone spent their life doing it. I am not about to do that, however.

You realise what you just stated here?

If your mind is open, it means it is open to OTHER POSSIBILITIES. His mind was closed ON THE ISSUE of god. MEANING that he won't change his mind. If his mind was truely open, he could accept the possibility that he is incorrect.

I empathise with him. Closed to God's non-existence but open to many other possibilities none-the-less.

And you think that a mere mortal such as us can know for certain if what he knows is true? ... Why?

Yes - Faith and a host of other t hings t hat come with it.

Except of course, the possibility that god doesn't exist...

Most certainly.

Possibilities with god may seem endless until you scrutinize.

They are endless.

WHAT?! You don't believe that "the matrix" is a distinct possibility? Crazyness!

I said less likely.

I don't believe in the matrix simply because there is no proof (and it adds unnecissary complexity)

I agree. God doesn't add complexity. He adds order and meaning (and fills some major Black Holes in scientific knowledge).

I CAN'T believe that you have no evidence in that mind of yours. I might have to be a psychologist to understand it (not really, any intelligent human being could), but I know that you have your own proof inside your head that makes you believe. It is simply not proof that I consider valid.(Ahh now you make sense.)

What makes you think that your petty little mind can know for a fact that it posseses the ultimate truth?

One thing I abhorred at school was when a kid would ask a question which the teacher has explicitly answered already.

Of course god's existance doesn't rest on what he belives.

Good.

Yet, all we have to go on is what we believe, we have no other source for information.

Dogmatic assumption. You have an open mind. Use it.

(yet we get other things to work quite well).

Thus you religiously assume math to be the uiniversal authority on truth. What if the math is wrong? And trust me, It doesn't work all that well with many things.

But if our reason is to withhold, then we MUST exist. And without reason, what use are we? The only thing I must say that I think is impossible is that we do NOT exist. "I think, therefore I am". [...] But then you have to prove that you are thinking, and you can only prove it to yourself. Therefore, we can know that we exist, because if we didn't exist, we couldn't think, now could we?

We exist, therefore we exist. That's what you state here.

Sound reasoning right?

Some might call it circular reasoning. Sound non-the-less.[/color]

That is very sad. At least whatsupall tried to find reasons for god. In many ways, he was the most reasonable of all the theists.

Sad? Speak for yourself. I'm glad because of my faith. Are you sad because of your inherrent faith in the foundations of science and your rationale?

I suppose you can't comprehend faith based on highest probability (which is based on reason)?

Ahh! The inherrent faith in lodic and math. Fast becoming religion.

You have said that you sense god through your soul. Are you implying, there, that I don't have a soul? I would have to agree, but I think it would sound strange coming from you.

In your statement above you have partially answerd all your questions on whyyyy... whyyyy? You commnicate with God through the Spirit. The spirit is linked to the mind. The soul is linked to the spirit. I see humans as extra-dimensional beings in a four dimensional constraint - all Christians do. Everyone has a soul. Your state of mind determines wether or not you will be able to communicate with your the Spirit which communicates with God. Faith in God makes you use these. Faith which comes from many evidences posited by theists here and the limitations of science itself. When you place your faith in God, you realise truth, through the Spirit which communicates with God.

And you think you understand my "nature"? Do you base this assumption of your understanding on your "faith" again?

Where di I imply or state that I understood your nature? You shouldn't trust your senses that much French [an opthamologist could help]

Your "faith" can't do anything useful exept get you into heaven.

What else would I want it to do?

Besides, why would such a "good" god throw me in hell JUST BECAUSE I don't believe in him? That would be a bit barbaric don't you think?

Not really. You and me both deserve it. If you understood the roots of Christianity you wouldn't ask me t hat question.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by inspector
This conclusion is non-sequitur, for two reasons.

I agree with this. However, did you really read and understand the bulk of his paper? It doesn't agree with much of what you have presented thus far in the forums. I'm working on a more comprehensive reply but the damm thing is 33 pages long. Quite interesting but a bit unfair for you to post as an argument. There are quite a few areas where I do agree with him... but, of course, there are also areas where I feel he is mistaken. As I said, I'll have a more comprehensive reply in the future.

~Raithere

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Logic again?!?

Originally posted by MarcAC
Here, Sir Morris, you are religiously using logic as the 'arbiter of truth'.

it's nice that you notice..

 

[Xelios]

"ARGUMENT FROM "CHANCE"..
(1) My aunt had incurable cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these modern medical treatments, but my aunt is still sick and was given few days to live.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God dont exists, and her cancer dissappeared by "chance"."

Once again, Whatsupyall's stupidity shows. Atheists would not claim she was cured by chance, they would claim she was cured by the medical treatments. Medical treatments are not miracle cures, they take time. Show some intelligence.

I agree. God doesn't add complexity. He adds order and meaning (and fills some major Black Holes in scientific knowledge).

I'm sorry MarcAC, but I cannot accept "God did it." as a reasonable answer to any hole in scientific knowlege. If it were that easy to fill the gaps we may as well say whatsup's purple squid monkey did it. And what about all the holes in religious knowlege? Take Noah's flood for example.

Thus you religiously assume math to be the uiniversal authority on truth. What if the math is wrong? And trust me, It doesn't work all that well with many things.

Care to point a few of these things out?

Ahh! The inherrent faith in lodic and math. Fast becoming religion.

There is no need for faith concerning math. Or can you demonstrate how faith is a fundemental requirement for accepting math?

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Sorry for butting in here, but I must. I do agree, but existence has no bearing on validity. I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god, therefore it would be illogical for me to BELIEVE in god. That simple statement with its simple logic, invalidates the presumption and arrogance of christianty as the arbitor of truth.

That is not my opinion, it is a smidge of objective truth. You can try to argue against it but the reasoning is sound. I challenge the greatest mind on earth to refute it.

(mind you, I'm not taking credit for anything more than recognizing truth)

Those are the words coming from the mind of an atheist or agnostic, for that is your BELIEF..You are a hypocrite..You are stating because God cannot be proven, therefore you found no reason to believe in Him, in other words you will believe in a statement with evidence..Well then, indeed there are no evidence that God does not exist either, why should you also BELIEVE that God dont exist?

Now there are many evidence to support the existence of God, (but from the atheist view, evidence and proof is a myth) but you deny them because you are blinded...To atheists, not only God is a myth, but evidence and proof is also a myth, EVEN TRUTH is a myth to them...You can give tons of evidence to support God, but they will still say "There is no evidence for God", and you know what kid, I DARE YOU PROVE SHAKESPEARE EXIST AS WELL, God, evolution, shakespeare, and others are a myth as well, they contain evidence but the evidence provided isnt valid to you....
If you want the greatest mind to challenge you, a simple student will challenge you by saying "How do you define evidence and what kind of evidence do you accept?" physical? What is physical? non-physical is a myth? What is non-physical? Non tangible?
All you need is simple education and COMMON SENSE..Maybe one day you will become a theist, AND MAYBE EVEN HAVE THE CHANCE TO BECOME A SENATOR ONE DAY, OR ANY HIGHER POSITION, who knows...But as of now, you are just a little minded atheist locked in your own little world denying reality..Peace out...

 

[Xelios]

You are stating because God cannot be proven, therefore you found no reason to believe in Him, in other words you will believe in a statement with evidence..Well then, indeed there are no evidence that God does not exist either, why should you also BELIEVE that God dont exist?

You shouldn't. The only logical choice in the matter is agnosticism. The belief that God may or may not exist, there simply is no evidence either way. Both pure Atheism and pure Theism are illogical. He is quite right.

As for the rest of your post, just your usual unreasonable and illogical rambling that I've come to ignore. But let me ask you something. Lets say my proof that demonstrates God does not exist consists of the fact that he has never directly interacted with humanity. You would not see this as proof correct? And indeed, neither would I. In the same way, your opinions cannot be considered proof either. And that's all you've presented to us so far, unsubstantiated opinions. What I challenge you to do is go to court, put forth your 'evidence' for God's existance and let the court settle it. After all, the entire court system is founded on evidence, it should have the definition of evidence quite correct. I will guarantee you the ruling would not be in your favor.

But of course, that would require you to become uncomfortable and admit you cannot prove God's existance any more than the existance of a purple squid monkey, so I highly doubt you will even attempt what I have suggested.

 

[(Q)]

inspector

Your use of the following statements has been rubbing me the wrong way for some time. I would therefore like to put it to rest.

The scientific method is based on circular reasoning.

Not a chance. Circular reasoning is what you're supposed to be proving while assuming it to be true though its conclusion is based entirely on a single premise or assumption, and thus can never form a deductive argument.

The scientific method, on the other hand, uses the conclusions derived from the premises and assumptions of all valid and invalid deductions. This allows experimenters to test predictions so as to construct accurate, reliable and consistent theories. They could never do so based on circular reasoning.

Can the scientific method determine the truth and knowledge of the scientific method?

The scientific method is a process to observe phenomena and then formulate hypotheses to explain the phenomena, make predictions of new observations then perform experiments to test the predictions. As more tests confirm predictions, hypotheses become accepted theories. But it is only through continuous and rigorous experimentation that these theories are accepted.

So lets break down the statement further. Truth takes shape in the mind of an observer using their imagination to grasp what might be true for as much as they can find out what is true, but at the same time truth resides in nature and can be accessed through the evidence of the senses by way of discernment and systematic experimentation.

We gain knowledge from both conceptions of truth using the scientific method.

The scientific method determines truth and knowledge of itself simply because it is the only form of explanation that requires systematic experimentation where the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable and unprejudiced.

As well, there exists in the scientific method, the capacity for a theory to be falsifiable. If further evidence can suggest modifying or discarding the theory, then those are the consequences.

The same would hold true for the scientific method as a process. Any process can be shown to be falsifiable if further evidence suggests the process is false or requires modification.

In order to prove your claim, you need to provide evidence to suggest the scientific method is not falsifiable.

Once again, there are things that exist that cannot be ascertained by logic and experiment.

This is a good example of circular reasoning.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Frencheneesz,

No, god is quite possible (in my mind). God is as possible in my mind as the idea of the Matrix (the movie), both possible, but neither have proof, and thus reasons for believing. I do not believe in god, simply, because I find that his existance is not neccesary to explain the world. Your existance is (I am talking to you), computer's existance is (i am writing on it), my existance is, etc. But I haven't seen anything that shows that god is there for sure. Things like the pleceabo affect do not contradict current laws, yet we cannot explain them. A contradiction would mean our laws suck (or god exists), but a simple lapse of understanding is only a wonder and a place for futher study, no more.

Accept? no. Accept the possibilty of? yes. I do not accept because (as I have stated) there is no proof (that I can see). I am not in denial, I am not crazy, but I cannot see the proof. And I do need proof, I would argue that those with "faith" also need proof, yet their proof is either faulty, vauge, or personal.

A miracle can make your laws contradictory... not so hard to see one... you just need to look in the right place... If you really want to find out wheter God exists or not by seeing a miracle happen, why don't you find a Christian (mainly evangelic ones...), a mature one and then follow him with his travelling. Of course, ask him if he does miracles (usually of healing). Then go with him and see by yourself. See it as a field trip to know about God... Research!

Do you think a caveman could watch an airplane fly overhead and disappear in the distance with "no appearant explanation? The answer is yes. No explanation does not imply god. If we get to understanding everything about biology and the human complex and STILL are then stumped about it, there might be something there..

It's against the laws you know...

That is such an iopinion! God appearantly created man, and I think we all agree man is not perfect....

We made ourselves imperfect by our own free will... God made us so perfect that we have a freedom of choice!

Well, when a scientific person "believes" in chance, they are usually talking about quantum theory. I haven't found anything inherintly wrong with using probabilities for fundmental particles, except I just don't like it.

Don't like it either...


James R,

What happens when I flip a coin? Is the result pre-determined by God? If you say "yes", what happened to free will?

See Jenyar's answer...

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Xelios
The only logical choice in the matter is agnosticism. The belief that God may or may not exist, there simply is no evidence either way. Both pure Atheism and pure Theism are illogical. He is quite right.

Sorry, but I disagree with that. All the theistic positions can be logically derrived, it's simply a matter of what one deems to be credible evidence. Theists, atheists, and agnostics all can build a logical argument based upon varying presumptions. This is not to say that everyone does so or that everyone's beliefs regarding religion are entirely logical. Nor do I personally find that all of the presumptions are equally defensible... but what is in question are these presumptions (foundations if you will) of the various logical arguments.

~Raithere

 

[Xelios]

But can you say that it is logical to believe in something that does not need to exist and has no evidence of it's existance attributed to it? Granted, all three beliefs can be grounded on logic in a limited way, but agnosticism is by far the most logical choice. Agnostics concede that there is not enough evidence to make an informed decision on the matter, something that is more logical than believing something with no evidence or need for it's existance.

 

[nettie282001]

Im not really sure if there is a god or not but can anyone explain to me where he or she came from to begin with?if he made the earth and skies where did he come from im confussed!Can someone help me with this? PLEASE THANK-YOU

 

[Xelios]

Most Christians will tell you he didn't come from anywhere, that he has always existed.

 

[mohamed]

moslims too, saying the same thing
coz he is god never been created never will go and always exist

 

[nettie282001]

But i dont understand how do you believe in something that you havent seen or heard?Are we supposed to go by what others think?I dont mean to sound stupid if i do but i really dont understand.Can someone tell me where he came from?Id really like to know and i bet im not the only person with the same question.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Xelios
But can you say that it is logical to believe in something that does not need to exist and has no evidence of it's existance attributed to it?

This would support a weak-atheist position (a lack of belief in God).

Granted, all three beliefs can be grounded on logic in a limited way, but agnosticism is by far the most logical choice.

Again, it's quite dependent upon the presumptions one gives. For instance, I can find no logical fault (in itself) with Tiassa's definition of God as "that which is greater than can be imagined" or even the Taoist depiction as that which beyond existence and conception (a terribly anemic depiction but I think you will get the point if you're unfamiliar with Taoism). It is when theists start making concrete assertions about God that they fall into logical error.

What I find most interesting is that science and philosophy fall into a similar trap. All assertions that can be made must be precisely defined. They thus become relational models rather than statements of fact.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by nettie282001
Im not really sure if there is a god or not but can anyone explain to me where he or she came from to begin with?if he made the earth and skies where did he come from im confussed!Can someone help me with this?

God is generally depicted as being a self-sufficient cause. That is, as opposed to those things that we experience in the world that are caused by something else God is his own cause and thus he has always existed. But the assumption that God indeed exists and that if he does he is the direct cause of ourselves and the world we experience is just that... an assumption.

But i dont understand how do you believe in something that you havent seen or heard?Are we supposed to go by what others think?I dont mean to sound stupid if i do but i really dont understand.Can someone tell me where he came from?Id really like to know and i bet im not the only person with the same question.

Well that is the catch, isn't it? Some people believe that they have indeed seen evidence of God. Others do not believe that this evidence is convincing enough to warrant a belief in God and they therefore choose to remain undecided. Yet others do not believe that there is any evidence that warrants a belief in God so they do not believe in God. These are the theistic, agnostic, and atheistic positions, respectively.

~Raithere

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Raithere
This would support a weak-atheist position (a lack of belief in God).

Again, it's quite dependent upon the presumptions one gives. For instance, I can find no logical fault (in itself) with Tiassa's definition of God as "that which is greater than can be imagined" or even the Taoist depiction as that which beyond existence and conception (a terribly anemic depiction but I think you will get the point if you're unfamiliar with Taoism). It is when theists start making concrete assertions about God that they fall into logical error.

What I find most interesting is that science and philosophy fall into a similar trap. All assertions that can be made must be precisely defined. They thus become relational models rather than statements of fact.

~Raithere

WOW. That's good stuff. WHat I find interesting is thaht your last couple of lines ARE statements of fact. It kind of messes with me. It's a recursive relationship though since the facts you state are relational to the language by which they are established. Thereby answering your original point of interest: Everything is relational because the language used to describe it defines the relationship. Something like that. Recursive relationships make my head explode, so the closer I get to trying to describe it, the less and less sense I feel that I make. It's kind of dizzying.

 

[Frencheneesz]

MarcAC:

"Would He create a rock He couldn't lift?"

As you yourself said, the point doen't rest on what he does do, it matters what he CAN do. You simply cannot have a creature that can "do everything", because that creature would have to be able to make himself NOT ABLE to do something. Past this, we are just arguing over technicallities. Lets just leave it at this: God can do anything except prohibit his own ability. Does this satisfy your rational?

"What do you define as His 'nature' there? His nature constitutes infinite understanding, knowledge, power, love, goodness."

I define his nature as the laws that govern how he thinks and acts. I would say that there are two choices: randomness and chaos, or vauge yet existing laws of nature and order. I think you might say that intelligence would be another choice here. But there must be some method to his madness (if you get my meaning). There must be something which guides his choices and actions, because otherwise he would be random and irratic changing personalities, abilities, and anything else, all the time. He must have some reasoning set that interprets his vast understanding, knowlege, and love.

"In mine and most theists minds God is a certainty. "

Certainty in the mind is the most probable. But in any case, why is that (dont tell me faith, tell me the reason for your faith)?

"You realise what you just stated here?"

Why don't you just tell me.

"Closed to God's non-existence but open to many other possibilities none-the-less."

Does it open up possibilities that science says cannot happen? Does it open up the possibility that god doesn't want us to pray to him? Does it open up the possibility that you don't exist? Does it open up the possibility that atoms really don't exist? Does it open up the possibility that the bible is incorrect?

"God doesn't add complexity."

Oh but he does. According to you it adds infinite complexity (since god is infinitely complex..)...

"Dogmatic assumption. You have an open mind. Use it."

Why don't you just tell me where im wrong, because I'm obviously not going to get it from myself. What other source of information do we have besides our memory? If our soul is a "sense" then it would have to be recorded in our memory, or is our soul a continuous input of "faith"?

"Thus you religiously assume math to be the uiniversal authority on truth."

Um no... I didn't say anything about math, there. Science has successfully led to consistent observations and working technology that could not have been done with guess and check.

"We exist, therefore we exist. That's what you state here. Some might call it circular reasoning."

No. I said we think, therefore we exist. Explain to me exactly how I could think, yet not exist... Also, how is it circular reasoning? We exist, so we exist is circular, but...

"Are you sad because of your inherrent faith in the foundations of science and your rationale? "

I don't have faith in science, i have understanding.

"Where di I imply or state that I understood your nature?"

---->>"You should understand the nature of those you are arguing with before you argue with them"

You are arguing me, so unless you are a hypocrit, you would think that you understand my "nature".

Not really. You and me both deserve it.

How so? A person should go to hell just because they are a person? Isn't eternal flames a bit harsh for being created?

Why exactly would it help god to punish people anyway?

 

[Frencheneesz]

whatsupall:

My blocking-you thing broke again.

"Well then, indeed there are no evidence that God does not exist either, why should you also BELIEVE that God dont exist? "

All true scientists assume that nothing exists FIRST. THEN we see what proof we can get that each thing exists. We build up a large knowelge of what exists this way.

If we assumed that EVERYTHING exists and figure out what DOESN"T exist, we'd have many many problems. Why exactly do you NOT believe in the super space monkey that throws asteriods? We disbelieve something without proof for the same reason you disblieve the monkey exists.

TruthSeeker:

"A miracle can make your laws contradictory... not so hard to see one... you just need to look in the right place"

Why, then, hasn't scientific studies been succesfullly conducted to verify that?

"God made us so perfect that we have a freedom of choice!"

My point is that "perfect" is an opinion. Whats perfect for one is not perfect for another.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Thereby answering your original point of interest: Everything is relational because the language used to describe it defines the relationship. Something like that. Recursive relationships make my head explode, so the closer I get to trying to describe it, the less and less sense I feel that I make. It's kind of dizzying.

It gets worse you're in a double recursion (infinite recursion?). Note that language is relational within itself. That is words are also defined by other words. Then we have the recursion of language as we use it to define the mind and to describe 'reality'. Finally, note that quantum physics seems to indicate that existence itself is infinitely recursive (forces acting upon other forces).

To wit, try to order these concepts:

mind, language, reality

Each contains the others.

~Raithere