Proof there is a God

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

If I may offer a slightly different version (from an atheist POV);
Bill: "God does not "must" exist."
Jill: "How do you know?"
Bill: "Because the Bible says it does"
Jill: "Why should I not believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by fallible man."
 
Last edited:
Your chosen meaning of the term will do just fine:

Like I said, the best way to win a debate is to get one's opponent to contradict themselves.

The bolded section mean either that the supernatural does exist beyond nature, or it appears as though it exists beyond nature.

Nature doesn't mean ''the laws of nature''

Wiki said:
Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general.

Wiki said:
Law of nature or Laws of nature may refer to:

Physical law: a scientific generalization based upon empirical observation

Natural law: any of a number of doctrines in moral, political, and legal theory

Scientific law: statements based on experimental observations and describe some aspect of the world, implying a causal relationship

Laws of science: statements that describe, and predict phenomena as they appear in nature

Law of the jungle: the idea that in nature, the only "law" is to do whatever is needed for survival

How do you think you have won this debate?

jan.
 
So the starting point is ; "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God".

It can be, if you want it to be.
But I'm just easing us gently into what God is.

I like that you believe God to be mathematics (even though you can't bring yourself to admit it).


This your definition of God? Which of course is not a functional definition at all and we are still left with just a Word..

I gave you my definition of God quite a while ago.
Did you miss it?

jan.
 
No Jan no fear here your view here is influenced by your beliefs.

Are yours?

My belief is my reality is on my observation eternal.

Are you saying you have observed that your reality is eternal, and it is through this observation you base your belief on?

My personal reality is eternal.

So what happens when you die?

I have truthfully enjoyed your posts Jan.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Mindyou if before a judge you would have been told to get to the point and failing to do so would see you lose the case.

If the judge was bias/prejudice like these guys, I'm sure you would be correct.

I found this thread, thanks in part to you, most entertaining.

These types of discussion are meant to be enjoyable, as well as serious. I'm glad you feel that way, because that is my intention. These guys are too miserable when it comes to discussing God (unless they are in the driving seat).

I have been tempted to engage the but as I said earlier such is my belief in my ability that I could not would not risk destroying your belief.
I never lost a case or a fist fight so my belief is I could change your belief and I really wont think of doing that.

I like you Alex. You seem to be at peace with yourself (to a point), but if you were capable of changing my belief (although my belief is not in question here), I would happily change. So please, if you have any real truths, please share them.

Forget I mentioned fiction and have a great life.

You too Alex.

jan.
 
Do you acknowledge that many people do not take scripture as objective evidence?
It can essentially be considered begging the question.

That's great because I'm not presenting them as evidence.
We need to know what God is, if we are to prove His existence. Do you agree?
So what better place to start than with scriptures?

DaveC said:
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

Is that what you've gotten from my posts this whole time?
I must be doing something wrong.

jan.
 
If I may offer a slightly different version (from an atheist POV);
Bill: "God does not "must" exist."
Jill: "How do you know?"
Bill: "Because the Bible says it does"
Jill: "Why should I not believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by fallible man."

Does that mean the Bible, or any scripture is wrong?
Is it impossible for the scriptures be absolutely correct?

jan.
 
Which ones? Different scriptures say different things, and they were ALL written by people.
 
All of them.
jan.
Finally you are using critical thinking and asking the right question on the reliability of any and all scripture. IMO, they are all flawed, which rules out the concept that scripture is *divine* and reveals *ultimate truth* .

Perhaps now we can discuss the scientific consensus as it pertains to the *necessity* of an Intelligent and Motivated prime causality.

Questions which may be answered by science.

1: Is it necessary for a prime causality to have human attributes?
IMO, no.

2: Is possible that the BB (creation) was a natural imperative, an inevitability?
IMO, yes.

3: Is Homo sapiens a result of evolution?
IMO, yes.
 
Last edited:
I like the idea that God is love. Not sure about math.
Is love necessary for *natural selection*? Is war, disease, starvation an expression of love?

IMO, an implacable (emotionless) universal mathematical function is essential for the formation and evolution of the universe and the natural selection of living things best adapted to their environment.
 
Last edited:
Finally you are using critical thinking and asking the right question on the reliability of any and all scripture.

I always do.

IMO, they are all flawed, which rules out the concept that scripture is *divine* and reveals *ultimate truth* .

This doesn't answer the questions I asked.

Perhaps now we can discuss the scientific consensus as it pertains to the *necessity* of an Intelligent and Motivated prime causality.
Questions which may be answered by science.

Okay.

1: Is it necessary for a prime causality to have human attributes?
IMO, no.

Does it have to be necessary for it to be the case?

2: Is possible that the BB (creation) was a natural imperative, an inevitability?
IMO, yes.

Did nature bring itself into existence, from a state of non existence?
Is that what you are saying?

3: Is Homo sapiens a result of evolution?
IMO, yes.

What is evolution the result of?

If I may offer a slightly different version (from an atheist POV);
Bill: "God does not "must" exist."
Jill: "How do you know?"
Bill: "Because the Bible says it does"
Jill: "Why should I not believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by fallible man."

Does that mean the Bible, or any scripture is wrong?
Is it impossible for the scriptures be absolutely correct?

jan.
 
Nature doesn't mean ''the laws of nature''
Nature is the embodiment of, and only of, the laws of nature. It is that which is in strict accordance with, and only with, the laws.
As such the two are indeed synonymous in the context used.
That you fail to see, or accept this, again causes me to ask: is English your first language, or is this yet another attempt to obfuscate and hopefully evade?
 
Are yours?

Yes but I do not trust that they are always my beliefs. I believe we are always being played, prayed upon and manipulated. Often when I find I have a view on something I ask why do I think this or that.
I look at others and ask why they think the way they do.

I wonder how so many folk believe they can not be wrong. I like to think I do not believe anything really and enjoy not taking a side or position.

One thing I do work with is the notion that "things just are" meaning everything awaits ones personal determination and judgement before it takes on a reality.

By this I mean when I look at someone or hear their view it is I (and me) who classes them good or bad, rude or polite, strong or weak, rich or poor and so on.... I try not to make little boxes for classification. I find this nuetrality sets me free. Generally this enables me to see everyone as good, every situation as opportunity and even the most horrid news I see as useful in so far as that will no doubt motivate many humans to work upon improving things so that next time things will be less horrible. Moreover I enjoy peace and happiness and think others may be uplifted because I set a positive example.

I thought you may have fears and could understand you may think I would have similar fears.

Are you saying you have observed that your reality is eternal, and it is through this observation you base your belief on

I am not sure how I can answer you here Jan other to say that there came a time when I realised what I said earlier made sence, that my death may have others sorry to see me go but for me I would not know from there it was clear to me I me, myself whatever this little voice is in my mind is eternal by its own measurement. It leaves me fearless which seems to be a good thing as most people I observe are full of fear, they are afraid of living and scared of dying, how nice not to be aflicted like that and be free to enjoy life, hold no guilt and harbour no regret.

So what happens when you die?

How I smile when I hear those words because I recall sitting in on conference between my old master solicitor (at the time he was 85 and of extrodinary intelect with no sence of humour in fact most blunt) and a client, going over a lease agreement. The client asked" But Mr. H... What will happen when I die? "... He lowered his glasses and seriously answered..." Why they will bury you of course"!
No one laughed.
And so my answer to your question is "they will bury me of course"

I like the idea of giving back via the compost bin.

So probably different to your view... When its over its over.

If there is a judgement day I have no reason to fear it I sincerely think I have been decent all my life and been a help rather than a burden.

I like you Alex. You seem to be at peace with yourself (to a point), but if you were capable of changing my belief (although my belief is not in question here), I would happily change. So please, if you have any real truths, please share them.

Maybe you can take something from my simple approach maybe not. You seem to think about things thats good.
I dont trust anything as I have said earlier and so I reject most everything written by humans as merely their view. So many things come down to one human conning another and I see religion as a con.
Heck it is so convenient, free will is a cop out, Gods none appearance again convenient.
Absence of everything and yet we have scriptures etc.... Mmmmm all man made... So given the bs humans come up with and their predisposition to fairy tales, superstition and the need to control others I reject all their fairy tales. If God wnats me he knows where to find me.

And frankly the religious folk I have met have been hypocrites, and so many selfish and greedy.
I know that can not be the way for all but sadly that has been my personal experience.
In law (and real estate) you get to observe how greedy and dishonest people behave.

I like you also Jan you present to me at least as decent I have no problem with the way you argue, as I said very entertaining.

Alex
 
Nature is the embodiment of, and only of, the laws of nature. It is that which is in strict accordance with, and only with, the laws.
As such the two are indeed synonymous in the context used.
That you fail to see, or accept this, again causes me to ask: is English your first language, or is this yet another attempt to obfuscate and hopefully evade?

I see it the other way round.

The laws of nature are observed, comprehended and predicted by humans.
Nature is the star of the show.
Did you see my quotes?
Or did you ignore them because you threw a hissy-fit? Yet again.

jan.
 
Back
Top