I repeat, BS.
Proof of the existence of God
- Thread starter Jason.Marshall
- Start date
I repeat, BS.
A world with no God, means no ability to imagine, and a world where imagination exists is a world with God.
What would it look like?
jan.
I've made no claims that God' existence is a ''fact''. You claim that God IS imaginary. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
If anything, the only proof I am burdened with is proof that I believe in God, as that is the only definate claim I have made.
One does not need to imagine a world with no God, we simply wouldn't exist. Unless of course you create a God in your mind which is not the original cause.
jan.
And why do you think that?
Because the definition of God state that God is the original cause/creator, so if such a cause didn't exist, there would be no effect.
jan.
The universe doesn't need a creator.
So you ARE claiming that God's existence is a fact, then.
HarryT
Registered Member
This is a very interesting statement. Fact is: this is the belief of a religious person. Fact is: there is no evidence that everything that exists was created by somebody. Fact is: we don’t understand how it is possible that we and the universe exist. Fact is: It is human nature, need and/or instinct to try and make sense of things that we don’t understand and/or are in awe off. Fact is: It is very comforting to think that there is a higher powerful entity protecting us and this belief helps many people to cope with the things life throws at them. Give all these facts, it makes perfect sense to me that humans, or any self-aware being, will instinctively develop a religion of some sorts whether there is such a thing as a God or not. A very strong indication that this is true (if not evidence) is that every culture on Earth has developed a different religion. In any case: fact is: The Bible, The Koran or any other religious documents are written by religious people and not by God. So using anything written there as evidence for the existence of God is a circular/self-fulfilling argument.
Fact is, and therein lies what i belief to be the very definition, beauty and power of God:
Everybody is (or should be) free to believe what they want, or better: what they need …
No. I'm saying that if such a being exists, we only exist because it does, so to imagine a world with no such being, is to imagine non existence, which is not really possible as you would have to have to know what it is to not exist.
If you claim that God does not have to be define in the way that it is defined, then we're not talking about God.
So how did you know God IS imaginary?
jan.
HarryT,
Why is it?
What would you accept as evidence that God created the universe?
Why don't we?
Unless you can show that this is the case with me, it is a pointless statement, plus if it is as you say, human nature, then it applies to all humans theist to atheist, swim pool cleaner to cosmologist.
It's not comforting to me.
You haven't supplied facts, just cliched statements that give comfort to your position. In this case you don't have think about God.
That indicates that religion is natural to human beings, no matter what the source or destination of that religion is
I'm not using them as evidence. I believe the definition of God which are found those two scriptures, define the same, God, and you are atheist to that being which is defined (as the original cause of all causes, and gods). As we are talking about the same being, and that being happens to be clearly defined, I figure it is easier to have some point of reference in a bid to cut the type of pointless reasoning, and time wasting, and cut straight to the chase.
Is this your religion?
jan.
Why is it?
What would you accept as evidence that God created the universe?
Why don't we?
Unless you can show that this is the case with me, it is a pointless statement, plus if it is as you say, human nature, then it applies to all humans theist to atheist, swim pool cleaner to cosmologist.
It's not comforting to me.
You haven't supplied facts, just cliched statements that give comfort to your position. In this case you don't have think about God.
That indicates that religion is natural to human beings, no matter what the source or destination of that religion is
I'm not using them as evidence. I believe the definition of God which are found those two scriptures, define the same, God, and you are atheist to that being which is defined (as the original cause of all causes, and gods). As we are talking about the same being, and that being happens to be clearly defined, I figure it is easier to have some point of reference in a bid to cut the type of pointless reasoning, and time wasting, and cut straight to the chase.
Is this your religion?
jan.
Not saying you are a baby, but to a baby, a car doesn't need a creator, or a controller.
jan.
Fallacious logic: a simple matter of question begging.
Your quote above suggests otherwise. You have made the claims that, for the God you believe in "a world with no God means no ability to imagine", and "a world where imagination exists is a world with God".
It is a matter of fact that imagination exists in this world. Thus the inescapable logic is that you are claiming God's existence as fact:
A) Imagination exists (claimed fact).
B) A world where imagination exists is a world with God (claimed fact).
From A and B: God exists (claimed fact).
Unfortunately you have yet to demonstrate the truth of B, other than through question-begging.
You might be stating it as a conditional with "if such a being exists" but since you are using the conditional related to a statement of fact (we exist) you are logically claiming the subject of the condition (the existence of God) to also be a fact. You are merely dressing up a claim as a conditional for rhetorical effect, and apparently for the ability to deny you are actually making a claim of fact.
More fallacious logic, Jan. Your argument is:
A) God is the original cause.
B) We exist, therefore must have had a cause. (Or "All things must have a cause").
From A and B: God exists, or we wouldn't exist, but we do, therefore God exist... etc.
Perhaps if you show the soundness of B, and then show that A is also true beyond it being a mere definition. Or are you clinging to a notion that by giving something a definition is to mean it exists?
I can, after all, define the Celestial Teapot as a large teapot-shaped object that orbits our planet.
Or simply entertain the notion that God, as you have defined, does not exist. Not everything defined need exist. And once you accept that its existence is an unknown (i.e. do not rely on question-begging to put you into a cycle of believing) - unless you have proof to the contrary? - you start to identify the questions you should be asking, such as "can things exist without a cause?"
Aspects of religion, such as community, society, etc might well be natural. Religion, however, might just be a notion that has clung most tightly onto those things that are more likely to be "natural to human beings", such that some might erroneously see religion as also being natural.
HarryT
Registered Member
A non-religious person does not believe that a God as an original cause/creator exists, and would never say that what you said: “the definition of God is that God is the original cause/creator”. Believing that this is true is believing that such a God exists and is to be religious.
For God to reveal herself/himself physically, speak to us and explain how and why she/he created the universe? I must say believing that God exists to me almost(!) feels the same as denying that 1+1=2.
I guess because we have not spent enough time yet in trying to explain why the universe exists and/or we are not intelligent enough yet? Fact is: we don’t understand.
I don’t have a social science degree but I will try to answer as best as I can. First of all: yes it applies to all humans and also to you and me. You may not be aware of it or you may be denying it or you are an exception to the rule. Fact is that primitive humans feared things like lightning and initially searched and found an explanation in attributing this as the wrath of a God. At some point in human history we understood the mechanics behind lightning and thereby proved it had nothing to do with God. Of course you now do not feel a need to explain lightning as the wrath of a God because you understand the mechanics behind lightning. But you do seem to feel the need to explain that the universe exists because it was created by a God. To me it is exactly the same thing, only at a different level. It just makes sense, it is the natural child-parent relation, but at a different level. A basic human trait, that leaders have used throughout human history to control society.
Again, you may be the exception. All I can say is just look at how many people, even many so-called non-religious people, start praying to God when something bad is happening or they fear something bad will happen. And you have to admit it would be very nice if in that circumstance God would appear with her/his magic wand and make everything right? Besides this: The best example of this is my mother who died of cancer in her early fourties more than 35 years ago. It was very impressive to witness the power of her unconditional faith how she coped with the illness, the pain, with dying and leaving her husband with young children behind.
I still believe I did supply facts but you are free to disagree.
Interesting that you say this, because this is precisely the point I am trying to make.
My point is only that de definition written in those scriptures is written down by religious people who believe such a God exists. Clearly defined or not, this definition ultimately came from primitive human fear of lightning that has evolved over the ages. It is a product the human mind because religion is natural to human beings as you call it. Not because such a cause/creator God exists.
No, it is my definition of religion. My personal religion is science, or in other words: the acceptance we are nothing more than self-aware walking water bags that, given enough time, will eventually be able to fully explain everything in the universe scientifically.
Sarkus,
Yawn!
My response is not contingent on belief. Mine or anyone else's.
Also my response is on the same level of the claim made by Seatle...
...
...he made a statement of fact based on exactly the same amount of scientific evidence as my response.
I'm telling you that I have made no such claim. Now if you like you can man-up and respond to the words I write, or you can wimp out and try to control both sides of the discussion like you always do.
But this time you'll get no response from me.
jan.
Yawn!
My response is not contingent on belief. Mine or anyone else's.
Also my response is on the same level of the claim made by Seatle...
...
...seatle said:
...he made a statement of fact based on exactly the same amount of scientific evidence as my response.
I'm telling you that I have made no such claim. Now if you like you can man-up and respond to the words I write, or you can wimp out and try to control both sides of the discussion like you always do.
But this time you'll get no response from me.
jan.
Easier to dupe.