God Must Exist;

[SciWriter]

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".

And what are the attributes if not that a Being created all, is all powerful, all knowing, and all that?

Does someone claim that a smart alien did some terraforming and is another kind of 'God' who is not fundamental and all the rest?


OK, then, people may now specify the various 'Gods', showing how they can be so, and they can be dealt with one by one.

I concentrated on all Theities and Deities, cutting them all off at the source.

Under current conditions - i.e. after creation.

There's literally nothing to make either 'God' or the basic stuff of. Zilch. Dead end.

 

[quinnsong]

The main reason that God exists is because men were not happy w/ their own father so they created a mo betta one!

 

[Dywyddyr]

And what are the attributes if not that a Being created all, is all powerful, all knowing, and all that?

Huh? English much?
How about: eternal?

I concentrated on all Theities and Deities, cutting them all off at the source.

No. You didn't.

There's literally nothing to make either 'God' or the basic stuff of. Zilch. Dead end.

And you seem to be forgetting that according to most theologies god wasn't made at all. he just existed, eternally.

This is what your "disproof" doesn't address.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
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.

Well, the word 'god' obviously exists in the English language. That word is associated with a whole variety of often-inconsistent traditional stories, meanings and supposed attributes, typically drawn from one of the major theistic religious traditions. (Here in the US that's usually Christianity.)

Okay.

When I say that I don't believe that God exists, I'm not typically using the word 'God' in any precise sense to refer to the named deity(ies) of any single tradition. I'm kind of rhetorically waving my arm at all of that kind of stuff.

Okay.

So that's a problem for your theory right there, since the word 'God' doesn't seem to have a clear and consistent reference to any single object, whether existent or imaginary. In other words, it isn't entirely clear what we are talking about (and in your theory, forming a relationship with) when we use the word 'God'.

So what is meant by ''theist'' and ''atheist''?

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

I'm going to disagree pretty strongly with that one. Having a concept of the meaning of some word, even if the concept is clear and precise, isn't the same thing as perceiving the referrant of the word. Even in Christian theology, thinking of the word 'God' isn't the same thing as having a revelatory vision of God.

So what is it about ''God'' that you lack belief in?

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.

That might be true, if God is only taken to be a human concept. The fictional character Sherlock Holmes is a real concept too, one that might be more precise and detailed than the concept of God in fact. Invisible pink unicorns is a concept that I just thought of and therefore presumably exists (as a concept).

If ''God'' is taken to be a ''human concept'', then that is a quality, that has been attributed in hindsight.
But it still begs the question, what is the origin of this thought?
If ''God'' is merely a word, why conclude that a word is a ''human concept'? If ''God'' IS a ''human concept'', why conclude that he is?

But theists are typically making much stronger ontological claims than that about their God. Atheists aren't denying that the concept of 'God' exists. They use the word 'God' themselves and presumably they assume that it possesses some meaning, however vague. What atheists are denying, and theists are affirming, is that the word 'God' actually refers to something above and beyond the concept.

How does ''affirmation'' or ''denial'' affect the concept?

Can you explain to me, something which does NOT exist, outright.
Something like a pink unicorn will NOT suffice, as it is made up of parts that do exist, ie, pink, horses body, pig trotters etc.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

The main reason that God exists is because men were not happy w/ their own father so they created a mo betta one!

What they created was still modeled after the strict family father figure of those times, but the rewards of the afterlife must have outweighed that somehow.

 

[SciWriter]

How about: eternal? This is what your "disproof" doesn't address.

Of course, 'eternal' is an attribute, 'God' not even then having an earliest memory. Wish we could send him off to search for it, ha-ha.

Complexities still cannot be original, fundamental, and causeless as the First, having been around forever. One cannot have something already made and defined in all of its particulars without even having been made and defined in the first place that never was. Self-contradictory to the max!. This idea can't even work for mere and simple electrons, much less for some ultimate.

 

[Bells]

Bells,

Not first hand.

How is that even possible?

How do you know that a tree makes a sound when it falls, and you're not there to witness it?

I have seen several trees fall down. And I can recall the sound they make very clearly.

I can then deduce that it would be similar. But that would only if I were to come upon the fallen down tree or be told of it later.

But you have no memory of a tree falling down while being absent.

If I am absent, I would no tknow the tree had fallen down.

You would most probably regard the awsomeness of nature as God.
Or at least something superior to yourself, to whom you depend upon.

You mean scrounging for survival, finding clean drinking water and food to remain alive? That would be godly?

We consider nature awesome because we do not really live in it, we do not have to hunt for our own food, or pick berries and hope they are not poisonous and avoid deadly animals on a day to day basis.. I am sure if I dumped you in the middle of the outback, for example, with nothing but the clothes on your back, you would not be 'regarding the awsomness of nature as God'.

That would depend on my overall experience of life.
If a newly planted tree was to fall over, would it make the same sound?
No.

How do you know? You apparently haven't even seen a tree fall down. A newly planted tree would make the same noise, just not as loud.

 

[SciWriter]

Trees falling cause air vibrations. Only if someone is within hearing distance does their brain convert these to what we call sound.

Similar for the tree's e/m waves to convert to color, its molecules to be converted to odor, etc.

 

[Big Chiller]

Complexities still cannot be original, fundamental, and causeless as the First, having been around forever. One cannot have something already made and defined in all of its particulars without even having been made and defined in the first place that never was. Self-contradictory to the max!. This idea can't even work for mere and simple electrons, much less for some ultimate.

Your argument falls apart when a theist rejects the argument of physical complexities in God.

 

[John99]

Trees falling cause air vibrations. Only if someone is within hearing distance does their brain convert these to what we call sound.

Similar for the tree's e/m waves to convert to color, its molecules to be converted to odor, etc.

Is it a conversion or is it part of the process\effect of the vibrations. Does a light beam exist if no one were around to see it? Yes.

 

[nitram22]

Here is the simple truth.
We are all a part of a vast, perpetual experiment. I am driven to the pursuits of knowing what can be known. And I've come to realize that it's the way one would define God. If you define God as the powerful force that 'triggered' the Big Bang to see the vast creation of the Universe unfold. As well as, the rules that balance and power the great wonders in our universe. Letting that scientific garden flourish is without satisfaction would be without meaning. So letting seeds of conscious life EVOLVE within it to learn and bear witness to its greatness, gives validity to all of it. God doesn't' truly need us to know who or what his/her/its reason is to let it all happen without intervention. But, to be sure, this Universe is pointless without intellectual conscious beings to understand this Universe as the image in his/her/its own perception. Science is creation. That is how we find 'God', by discovering the truth. And that truth is that.... It is all random, as we experience in our hearts, and learn in our minds the spiritual essence of the evolution of science. Amen

 

[SciWriter]

Your argument falls apart when a theist rejects the argument of physical complexities in God.

It is rather that a theist cannot just make things up and get anywhere at all, and, besides, mind is still mind, whatever form they want to make up for it, and that is the beauty of the argument. Beings are out.

Self-contradiction cannot be gotten around by "just saying". I'll give them a smart alien, though.

 

[SciWriter]

Is it a conversion or is it part of the process\effect of the vibrations. Does a light beam exist if no one were around to see it? Yes.

Of course it is a conversion (and it depends on the state of the source) to a better and more useful face painted upon what the senses take in. The senses are our spy outposts on reality and receive it directly.

Air vibrations are interpreted through the ear mechanism and the brain into sound. Molecule shapes are turned into smell by the nasal receptors and the brain. Taste becomes of an at least 4-way vector of the sweet, sour, bitter, and salt areas on the tongue from what's in the food or drink and from the brain. Touch is converted by nerves and the brain.

And of course an e/m waves of photons exists in the frequency of what is the visible part of the spectrum, but the actual quale of light is, again, formed in the brain after the visual systems process what the eye took in, and color is determined by the amount of rotation of the three types of eye cone proteins that rotate according to the amount of primary color received, as there are also three primary colors.

A tree that falls in the forest doesn't look like anything if no one is there to see it, nor does it make what we call sound, nor does it have we call smell.

In a night dream it is just the opposite, for there can be sound, smell, and light without the respective air vibrations, molecules or their shapes, or visible e/m waves coming in.

 

[spidergoat]

Here is the simple truth.
We are all a part of a vast, perpetual experiment. I am driven to the pursuits of knowing what can be known. And I've come to realize that it's the way one would define God. If you define God as the powerful force that 'triggered' the Big Bang to see the vast creation of the Universe unfold. As well as, the rules that balance and power the great wonders in our universe. Letting that scientific garden flourish is without satisfaction would be without meaning. So letting seeds of conscious life EVOLVE within it to learn and bear witness to its greatness, gives validity to all of it. God doesn't' truly need us to know who or what his/her/its reason is to let it all happen without intervention. But, to be sure, this Universe is pointless without intellectual conscious beings to understand this Universe as the image in his/her/its own perception. Science is creation. That is how we find 'God', by discovering the truth. And that truth is that.... It is all random, as we experience in our hearts, and learn in our minds the spiritual essence of the evolution of science. Amen

If we can be sure of anything it is that a powerful force was not required to start the Big Bang. The early universe was microscopic.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Here is the simple truth.

And that's where you stop being worth reading.
How do you know it's the "truth"?

 

[leopold]

If we can be sure of anything it is that a powerful force was not required to start the Big Bang. The early universe was microscopic.

microscopic like in amoeba?
and this explosion didn't require a tremendous amount of energy?
you could be right, or you could be wrong, depending what is on "the other side".
if the universe is expanding into a vacuum then you could be right.
if the universe is expanding into something else ( you will notice i was very careful here ) you could be wrong.

been talking to god lately? if so ask him when i can buy my lottery ticket.

 

[leopold]

Does a light beam exist if no one were around to see it? Yes.

correct, even though a "light beam" doesn't "light up" anything.

 

[wynn]

And that's where you stop being worth reading.

Interesting reply!

My personal maxim is that when someone declares to know the Absolute Truth, this person must either be followed in complete submission, or feared and avoided like the plague, there is no middle way.

 

[spidergoat]

microscopic like in amoeba?

Much smaller.

and this explosion didn't require a tremendous amount of energy?

Zero external inputs of energy.

you could be right, or you could be wrong, depending what is on "the other side".

been talking to god lately? if so ask him when i can buy my lottery ticket.

 

[drumbeat]

And that's where you stop being worth reading.

Same. It's like when someone goes: "this is the funniest joke...."

You just know that it won't be.