God Must Exist;

John99 said:
Thats nice but why keep repeating it?
Click to expand...
maybe they are trying to convince themselves.
if god exists it most certainly isn't a benevolent supernatural being.
spidergoat said:
Yes, on pain of eternal torture. If God exists, it's a psychopath.
Click to expand...
from what i've read of the bible i find the christian god impossible to accept.
maybe the authors (there were many) was on drugs at the time, the american indians chewed peyote for their religious experiences.
must have been some good stuff to see god eh?
 
John99 said:
Which is not a Christian concept though.

What do you find hard to accept?
Click to expand...
a benevolent, supernatural being, full of love and compassion for humanity.
one quick look around will answer that question.
at this point most theists will say something like "well it's some kind of test".
what gives this god a right to fart around with innocent lives?
the theist will now counter with "all are guilty, none are without sin"
tell that to a 3 day old child.
 
leopold99 said:
a benevolent, supernatural being, full of love and compassion for humanity.
one quick look around will answer that question.
at this point most theists will say something like "well it's some kind of test".
what gives this god a right to fart around with innocent lives?
the theist will now counter with "all are guilty, none are without sin"
tell that to a 3 day old child.
Click to expand...

I though you meant something specific.
 
leopold99 said:
from what i've read of the bible i find the christian god impossible to accept.
maybe the authors (there were many) was on drugs at the time, the american indians chewed peyote for their religious experiences.
must have been some good stuff to see god eh?
Click to expand...

No big deal, it's an experience accessible to most modern people. I've experienced such things numerous times.
 
Dywyddyr said:
If I am understanding Jan as he means it, then he is saying that as long as anyone is making any statement about God (ie. any statement that has the word "God" in it), then this person has some perception of God, some relationship with God.
Click to expand...
No. Simply because someone uses a word in a discussion and I reply doesn't mean that I have an actual perception of the thing under discussion. (Note the number of times I have asked for definitions &c. in such discussions.) Like Jan's attempts at blue monkeys.
Click to expand...

No.

I said:

"as long as anyone is making any statement about God (ie. any statement that has the word "God" in it), then this person has some perception of God, some relationship with God".

I didn't say you have an accurate perception of the thing under discussion; but you do have some perception (which may be accurate or not).
 
Signal said:
No.
I said:
"as long as anyone is making any statement about God (ie. any statement that has the word "God" in it), then this person has some perception of God, some relationship with God".
I didn't say you have an accurate perception of the thing under discussion; but you do have some perception (which may be accurate or not).
Click to expand...
Ah, okay. Then, like I said, we're back to Jan's "fuzzily imaged blue monkey".
Or, more specifically, as I once told a lawyer: "I recognise each and every word you've used as being English, but the way they've been used together in this particular sentence and has no meaning whatsoever for me".
 
Dywyddyr said:
Er, how is the Christian god not a Christian concept?
Click to expand...
It is an Egyptian concept is why . Horus story all over again . Just change the names . I think Moses learned it from his parents and then wrote the first 4 books of the bible based on the Egyptian way. Then it was just a matter of repeating the success stories after that . The Egyptians got it from the Mittani ( Possible spelling error ) People . Yeah Akhnaton and his one god came from a princes betrothed to him . The Daughter of the Mattani ( Warning Possible spelling error ) King
 
Jan Ardena said:
If our whole life, and perception are based on relationships.
God must exist.

For something NOT to exist fully, it cannot be percieved by the mind, or exist
in the memory.

Hi, just want to see what you philosophical headz think to this; :)

1. To believe God does not exist, or, that there is not enough evidence for his existence, still forms a relationship, at least in the mind, because God has to be percieved to not to exist.

2. That perception differs ONLY, from the perception of God does exist, in
the negative sense, as opposed to a positive one.

3. The only way God can NOT exist is to illiminate all notions of God, Supreme Being, Leader, boss, from the mind.
By doing so one relinquishes the relationship.

4. This is not a theistic argument, or a religious one.
It is more in the realm of an ontological one.

What do you think?

thanks
jan.
Click to expand...

It can be shown that 'God' cannot possibly exist, if you're interested.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Sure, within context.

jan.
Click to expand...

There's no other context but God or not.

First of all, a supposed Being is a system of mind operating to think, plan, and create everything else, and such a system cannot possibly be first before all else, for its parts and sub parts would come before the whole, just as we see for ourselves—composite complexities who took 13.75 billion years to come about.

It is that simple, elemental things are first, such as electron/positrons, photons, and quarks/anti-quarks, and, even at that, they seem to pop in and out of existence. Gods do not, and so, all the more, Gods cannot be first.

Look to the future and greater complexity for a higher mind, not to the simpler and the past, and also note that even in the far future that some smart life form of an alien might have great intelligence, although by definition, he cannot be God as fundamental and first, either, but also that an infinite complexity is not going to be reached there either, much less as the First.

Secondly, the basis of all these virtual particles popping in and out of existence is either them, themselves, some Zero Point Energy (ZPE), or even that 'nothing' cannot be, and thus must jiggle, and, so, without worrying which of these cases is so, we note that what they have in common is that an eternal basis must be so, which means no creation, and again, no Creator.

It is also that no Creator has been seen, and that emotional grooving on belief can inhibit logical learning and analysis, causing one to be two step removed from even considering the first three arguments, and thus, persistent in still 'Just saying" that 'God' must be so, and even going overboard to state it as total truth and fact, not even admitting that is just a notional wish, and not even the status of a theory, much less proved.
 
SciWriter said:
First of all, a supposed Being is a system of mind operating to think, plan, and create everything else, and such a system cannot possibly be first before all else, for its parts and sub parts would come before the whole, just as we see for ourselves—composite complexities who took 13.75 billion years to come about.
Click to expand...
So, essentially, your argument comes down to "god is not actually god".
Not exactly convincing.
 
Dywyddyr said:
So, essentially, your argument comes down to "god is not actually god".
Not exactly convincing.
Click to expand...

No, a 'God' is not at all possible, 'God' being First and then creating all; other beings are possible, and cannot be 'God' as Johnny-come-latelys, for they didn't create everything, are not all powerful, all seeing, or any of that jazz that defines a 'God'. There is a hierarchy to a system of mind no matter even if some spirit kind of material is claimed.

Secondly, there is that an eternal basis of the simple elemental quantum foam does not admit of creation.

Third, there is absence of evidence for a Theity who is supposed by everywhere, doing everything. Only one counter example would have been required.

'God' was made in the image of our own being.

Only self-contradiction can be used to prove an invisible, and so I have used it.


Believers are free to show how a Being could be First, and also how the basis of what is was not eternal in order to level the field. It would be welcomed in lieu of saying that it is a sure thing.
 
Much of Jewish myth and legend (OTs first books) are derived from the Sumerian texts but not nearly as dtailed, though.
 
SciWriter said:
No, a 'God' is not at all possible, 'God' being First and then creating all; other beings are possible, and cannot be 'God' as Johnny-come-latelys, for they didn't create everything, are not all powerful, all seeing, or any of that jazz that defines a 'God'. There is a hierarchy to a system of mind no matter even if some spirit kind of material is claimed.
Click to expand...
Once again you're denying that god as he is understood is actually god. You're forming a specious argument, simply denying the properties as specified in order to deny the premise. You have work with the attributes as given in order to form a logical "disproof".

Secondly, there is that an eternal basis of the simple elemental quantum foam does not admit of creation.
Click to expand...
Under current conditions - i.e. after creation.
 
quinnsong said:
Much of Jewish myth and legend (OTs first books) are derived from the Sumerian texts but not nearly as dtailed, though.
Click to expand...

The Jewish and other history therein is but history, and I'm not worried about the accuracy of that, but the myths of gods being subdued and rolled into God as Jehovah are clearly just amalgamations of all sort of legends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top