Arguing the Existence or Non-existence of God--the thread that never ends

[Avocado]

Turns out the universe might have never had a beginning. It's new research of course so it's not certain, but it's a pretty good lead.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

Are you an astrophysicist?

 

[AOA]

God is Real.

It doesn't matter if you believe in Him. It depends on who you are.

 

[citizen cane]

 

[Obsidius]

How does biblical history prove the existence of God? Most of it has little to no evidence, and the evidence that is usually expounded seems to be subject to confirmation bias more times than not. The existence of God is the single largest assumption one can make. You are saying that something infinitely more complex than the Universe exists. This requires a lot of justification in order for anyone to support its truth value, seeing as the God of the Bible is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. I've yet to hear anyone make an even somewhat competent argument for such a being.

 

[Coriolis]

If you read the OT, you will see that the Biblical God has a suspiciously anthropomorphic personality (e.g. temper tantrums, and contradictary statements).

"Man created God in his own image."

But for some reason there was a word on it in Latin which caught my eye and the word was 'Deus' which was followed by 'es verus.'

Which translates to 'God is real.'

It could have said something like "Jews suck". What then? Would you have seen it as encouragement to become anti-semitic?

If anyone in this forum exists that can convince me (most people) that there is an almighty creator god who loves us all, it is you.

Why do you want to be convinced?

Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light. The Bible does... God simply spoke.

That is not an explanation, just wishful thinking. At least scientists admit it when we cannot (yet) explain something.

 

[LonestarCowgirl]

That is not an explanation, just wishful thinking. At least scientists admit it when we cannot (yet) explain something.

There are exceptions to every rule. :S

What are my chances of having that message [your message] reworked and redelivered with more enthusiasm, vision, and overall, more Ne appeal?

 

[Coriolis]

There are exceptions to every rule. :S

What are my chances of having that message [your message] reworked and redelivered with more enthusiasm, vision, and overall, more Ne appeal?

I couldn't say. If there's an Ne dom/aux in the area who shares a similar opinion, he/she might come up with something.

 

[LonestarCowgirl]

I couldn't say. If there's an Ne dom/aux in the area who shares a similar opinion, he/she might come up with something.

I was aiming for something like that, but I'll settle for grins.

You're a very logical girl!

 

[Mole]

Modernity and MBTI

Modernity means searching for origins.

And for religion it means searching for the origin of a particular religion. And we find that the scholarly account of the origins of a particular religion and the religious account of the origin of their religion are quite different.

This discrepancy between religious myth and historical fact has been highly disturbing for religions.

The response of religions to modernity has veered between fundamentalism on one hand, and abandonment of religion on the other.

A search for the origins of mbti brings up the same discrepancy between what is said about mbti by practitioners and the historical facts.

And the response to modernity by mbti is almost the same as the religions.

 

[iNtrovert]

How does biblical history prove the existence of God? Most of it has little to no evidence, and the evidence that is usually expounded seems to be subject to confirmation bias more times than not. The existence of God is the single largest assumption one can make. You are saying that something infinitely more complex than the Universe exists. This requires a lot of justification in order for anyone to support its truth value, seeing as the God of the Bible is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. I've yet to hear anyone make an even somewhat competent argument for such a being.

The existence of the universe or multiple universes is not a synthetic necessity. “Gods” that are not omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent cannot exist out of synthetic necessity, but the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God can. Anything that falls short of being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent would create an infinite regress of events .The universe is finite, cannot exist out of synthetic necessity and would create an infinite regress. Thus, the universe begs the question of what caused it whereas synthetic necessities do not. So I would say it makes perfect sense to suppose that something more complex than the universe can exist and that it is likely.

 

[johnnyyukon]

"The thread that never ends" lol. is that new? I like it.

 

[Polaris]

Logical arguments don't cut it for me. People have argued for everything with logic. I want to know what reality will look like if there is a God (hopefully it would entail something more profound than a sense of satisfaction over having resolved a logical problem inside your head), and how that differs from a reality in which there is no God. Talk about how there would be an impossible infinite regress if there were no God doesn't help me do that. If something is impossible, it doesn't happen, period. A better starting point for establishing God's existence is to discuss the real impact that believing in God has on your life. Those are things that would not be happening in the way that they're happening in a universe where God doesn't exist in at least the same sense as a fairy or a unicorn exists.

 

[Mademoiselle]

Well..
Weather we believe or not
Weather we’ve reached the conclusion or yet
And no matter what our reasons are to have an opinion in this true or right
Correct or not
In the end the truth remains truth.
.
.
In fact, we needn’t much to realise that there is a greater power.
Logic> There are rules, and rules are made by the power of a party.
Science> Universe AKA the perfect matter that was once got affected by a major power.. AFFECTED

There are many reasons and everything is actually a proof to Gods existence.
What I’m saying
Is that this beautiful detailed impressive things in the universe, and the beautiful meanings in life
Are obviously NOT pointless and are more than a matter of survival
It is not a circle we got around over and over, not a cycle
It is a single push, there’s judgment after, there must be!
In any case motion requires force.
Either a single force or a major force than can hide the effect of other forces (control, matter of power)
Anything with a beginning has an end, was once created and forced/brought to existence.

As the brilliant humans are not capable of running the whole universe.. There’s a creator and a programmer of all things.
Most impressive part of this is,
Again, if we choose to believe or not
The truth remains the same

So as everyone has an opinion, and I said my own.
Let’s stop wasting time in trying to convince others over and over
This is rude.
And bullying is way better [crime] than pushing people to believe what you believe in.

 

[á´…eparted]

Well..
Weather we believe or not
Weather we’ve reached the conclusion or yet
And no matter what our reasons are to have an opinion in this true or right
Correct or not
In the end the truth remains truth.
.
.
In fact, we needn’t much to realise that there is a greater power.
Logic> There are rules, and rules are made by the power of a party.
Science> Universe AKA the perfect matter that was once got affected by a major power.. AFFECTED

There are many reasons and everything is actually a proof to Gods existence.
What I’m saying
Is that this beautiful detailed impressive things in the universe, and the beautiful meanings in life
Are obviously NOT pointless and are more than a matter of survival
It is not a circle we got around over and over, not a cycle
It is a single push, there’s judgment after, there must be!
In any case motion requires force.
Either a single force or a major force than can hide the effect of other forces (control, matter of power)
Anything with a beginning has an end, was once created and forced/brought to existence.

As the brilliant humans are not capable of running the whole universe.. There’s a creator and a programmer of all things.
Most impressive part of this is,
Again, if we choose to believe or not
The truth remains the same

So as everyone has an opinion, and I said my own.
Let’s stop wasting time in trying to convince others over and over
This is rude.
And bullying is way better [crime] than pushing people to believe what you believe in.

What this boils down to, is you're saying "god exists, I am right, and how dare you challenge me or anyone else who believes".

Yeah no, you don't get a free pass, the world does not work that way. Besides, you haven't proved anything by saying this.

Is it rude to question like this? Yeah. However, it's just as rude for you do assert what you're asserting. It goes both ways.

 

[Mademoiselle]

What this boils down to, is you're saying "god exists, I am right, and how dare you challenge me or anyone else who believes".

Yeah no, you don't get a free pass, the world does not work that way. Besides, you haven't proved anything by saying this.

Is it rude to question like this? Yeah. However, it's just as rude for you do assert what you're asserting. It goes both ways.

No,my friend..
I’m saying, this is my opinion, I heard yours, let’s end the discussion and not try to convince each other.

 

[á´…eparted]

No,my friend..
I’m saying, this is my opinion, I heard yours, let’s end the discussion and not try to convince each other.

Not quite yet, as I want to understand where you stand on this, and based off what I have heard you say in the past.

In the past, I have heard you say you believe your religious beliefs are the one true way, and that everyone should adhere to them since it is the "best" lifestyle to live under.

Since you are now saying that we should just not try to convince each other and leave each other alone, that says to me that you simply don't want people to talk about any of this in particular, so your views can stay unquestioned and in your eyes "right". The combination of these two speaks of an individual who wants to silence dissent or quiet questioning. The former of you saying "lets not try to question each other" is fine by itself. That's live and let live. However, combined with your stance you have expressed in the past changes that completely.

There is a difference between live and let live, and live but not want to let live. The latter of which is, in my view and quite a few others, not ok.

That said, if your view is that you genuinely do not want others of other views to not change what they do, how they live, and what they believe, then I will let this be and stop the discussion. The reason I bring this up is because I very strongly view the concept of religion as something that is purely individual and should not and can not extend beyond the self. To start applying it to others beyond you is profoundly unfair and illogical.

 

[Cygnus]

[MENTION=22782]Mademoiselle[/MENTION] [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION]


Now that you mention it, what does this mean?

Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove Gödel God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Kurt Gödel's Ontological Argument

Still can't quite understand it.

 

[á´…eparted]

[MENTION=22782]Mademoiselle[/MENTION] [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION]


Now that you mention it, what does this mean?

Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove Gödel God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Kurt Gödel's Ontological Argument

Still can't quite understand it.

This is well beyond my ability to understand. It combines two things I both really hate and struggle a lot with: math and philosophy. I'd have to have someone break this down for me. That, and because of how it's put together, I can't be arsed to try at the moment. I don't care enough.

As far as I am concerned I keep it simple: you can not prove god exists, and I follow occams' razor of in the absence of solid proof for an answer or explaination, the simplest one is most likely the correct one. The simplest is that god doesn't exist, and I have absolutely no reason to believe in it in the absence of solid evidence. Things that appear to be "godly" almost always can be explained rationally in reality. If they can't, usually enough time passes and we learn enough where we can.

The only thing that would change my tune is if there truly becomes solid evidence, which I sincerely doubt there ever will be.

 

[Nicodemus]

[MENTION=22782]Mademoiselle[/MENTION] [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION]


Now that you mention it, what does this mean?

Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove Gödel God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Kurt Gödel's Ontological Argument

Still can't quite understand it.

Gödel's proof proves that a god so defined as in his argument is logically possible. It does not prove his existence, which, as Kant made clear, a mere argument will never do, because existence is not a proper predicate.

 

[Obsidius]

The existence of the universe or multiple universes is not a synthetic necessity. “Gods” that are not omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent cannot exist out of synthetic necessity, but the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God can. Anything that falls short of being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent would create an infinite regress of events .The universe is finite, cannot exist out of synthetic necessity and would create an infinite regress. Thus, the universe begs the question of what caused it whereas synthetic necessities do not. So I would say it makes perfect sense to suppose that something more complex than the universe can exist and that it is likely.

Well, first of all, an infinite regression isn't an issue, because the only reason the Christian God fixes this problem is because they slap the label "eternal" on it, I could do the same for a Universe, and call the problem 'solved'. Also, explain synthetic necessity, because I've never heard of it, even after looking it up, there's nearly nothing about it. Actually, there is nothing about the exact term "synthetic necessity", I'm wondering if you just artificially amalgamated epistemological necessity and semantical synthetics... Also, you have not proven that it's "likely" even if your argument is true, just that it avoids infinite regression by defining itself to be free of the problem, which you could do with any other explanation. The thing is, literally any lesser being/event with the capability of creating a Universe is a more likely creator, by virtue of Occam's razor.