20 arguments for the existence of God

[hamashiachagape]

So you are now arguing about the origination of the word... which I agreed was greek.

Keep up.

It being greek doesn't make it a philosophy.



Fortunately lil Ravi isn't an authority on language but you've once again appealed to authority.

Ravi is an authority on the Philosophical nature of Mysticism (your position), and has spent time with the leading scholars of the Atheistic movement too.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Because the metaphysical principles of Buddhism are not absolutely rooted in rational/logical language. The experiential and intuitive aspects of life are what root one in the experience of satori. You feel it, you experience it. You don't expect others to believe that you have experienced it, you demonstrate that you have become awakened through actions and words.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Atheism, existentialism and postmodernism don't say what you say they do except in isolated incidents. You can't generalize the whole use of a concept except as it is formalized in a system, which atheism doesn't have. There aren't associated beliefs with atheism, there is only the basic mental state of not believing in a God.

Is that a better description for this mechanistic logic you are using ad nauseum to try to analyze virtually any defense one puts forward as fallacious instead of looking at the argument and seeing what value it has. Instead you just dismiss it at face value because it's defending something you've already concluded before rational thought is without value.

Okay, so Atheism is resorting to the same Philosophical tactics. Explain then, because the principle of Identity DOES affirm my position how ATheism is different (though I know this can not be done, try for it).

 

[hamashiachagape]

Because the metaphysical principles of Buddhism are not absolutely rooted in rational/logical language. The experiential and intuitive aspects of life are what root one in the experience of satori. You feel it, you experience it. You don't expect others to believe that you have experienced it, you demonstrate that you have become awakened through actions and words.

And then you utilize language and logic to explain that. Remember the special pleading thing I was talkign about earlier?

Experience is not self interpreting.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Given that your argument holds as much evidence as his no doubt Hamas will reject his god.

You can assert it, but it does not make it true. One can not successfully refute God. In order to do so, as I stated before, you would have to have definitionally the same amount of knowledge as God. No human can do this.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Christians often make the point that to know anything requires a God, because it is the best explanation for order in the universe.

The problem is when you claim "you know nothing" you know at least that. Thats self refuting.

 

[hamashiachagape]

The simple moral of this story is that finite understandings do nothing to the existence of God. This is why I see it as philosophically impossible to refute the existence of God.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Okay, so Atheism is resorting to the same Philosophical tactics. Explain then, because the principle of Identity DOES affirm my position how ATheism is different (though I know this can not be done, try for it).

atheism is different from theism, yes, I never denied that. Your point? Atheism being the opposite of theism doesn't make it self contradictory any more than black being the opposite of white makes it self contradictory, or nothingness being the opposite of somethingness

 

[hamashiachagape]

atheism is different from theism, yes, I never denied that. Your point? Atheism being the opposite of theism doesn't make it self contradictory any more than black being the opposite of white makes it self contradictory, or nothingness being the opposite of somethingness

No, just the position of Atheism itself is self contradictory. That Metaphysical thing we were discussing earlier.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The simple moral of this story is that finite understandings do nothing to the existence of God. This is why I see it as philosophically impossible to refute the existence of God.

By that admittance, it's philosophically impossible to prove it, since any understanding you have of anything is finite. Any revelation you believe is from "God" is still written in a finite language, so the rule still applies and any belief in "God" purely based in faith. Any arguments are preaching to the choir

 

[hamashiachagape]

By that admittance, it's philosophically impossible to prove it, since any understanding you have of anything is finite. Any revelation you believe is from "God" is still written in a finite language, so the rule still applies and any belief in "God" purely based in faith. Any arguments are preaching to the choir

We don't need to prove it. Our job is just to refute everything else. We can know something about the existence of God, just not everything, and Theists readily admit this. There is evidence for the existence of God. One is that so many people today believe it. Only 9% of the population disbelieve in God.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No, just the position of Atheism itself is self contradictory. That Metaphysical thing we were discussing earlier.

That's because you mistakenly assume metaphysics requires a theistic basis, which you haven't demonstrated why this is so except that you presume in order for metaphysics to have coherence apparently you need an absolutely necessary being, which is just distracting as a red herring.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

We don't need to prove it. There is evidence for the existence of God. One is that so many people today believe it. Only 9% of the population disbelieve in God.

If there's evidence, that means you already seek to prove it. If God is believed in by faith, that means evidence is not the issue, it's whether your "soul" is prepared to believe in God not by sight, but by the spirit. And now you're making another fallacy by arguing through majority.

 

[hamashiachagape]

That's because you mistakenly assume metaphysics requires a theistic basis, which you haven't demonstrated why this is so except that you presume in order for metaphysics to have coherence apparently you need an absolutely necessary being, which is just distracting as a red herring.

How is this mistaken?

Okay, how do you explain order without God?

 

[hamashiachagape]

If there's evidence, that means you already seek to prove it. If God is believed in by faith, that means evidence is not the issue, it's whether your "soul" is prepared to believe in God not by sight, but by the spirit. And now you're making another fallacy by arguing through majority.

No, it has nothing to do with this. Logically to be intellectually honest, one can not disbelieve in God. Thats all this proves.

In fact, evidence has plenty to do with WHICH God to believe in.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Order is order, the laws exist, to try to find the origin behind them only distracts you from the already impressive burden of seeing the order that exists within natural chaos. To posit an orderer for order suggests that the order itself is not orderly, but is in fact chaotic. Therefore people suggesting that order needs an anthropomorphic source are presuming that nature is somehow inhuman or antihuman, when that contradicts the fact that humans are part of nature.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Order is order, the laws exist, to try to find the origin behind them only distracts you from the already impressive burden of seeing the order that exists within natural chaos. To posit an orderer for order suggests that the order itself is not orderly, but is in fact chaotic. Therefore people suggesting that order needs an anthropomorphic source are presuming that nature is somehow inhuman or antihuman, when that contradicts the fact that humans are part of nature.

Part of logical consistency is something can not bring itself into existence. Since Philosophers believe knowledge is infinite, it needs an infinite provider.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No, it has nothing to do with this. Logically to be intellectually honest, one can not disbelieve in God. Thats all this proves.

In fact, evidence has plenty to do with WHICH God to believe in.

Logically I disbelieve in "God" for multiple logical reasons. Your disagreeing with it doesn't automatically debunk my claims. Your arguing against them is not perfect either. To be more accurate, I disbelieve that the question of "God"'s existence is even relevant or meaningful. Which by your skewed logic means I'm agnostic or skeptical, which is only partly right, since I'm atheist in the metaphysical sense of not having God-belief as part of my worldview.

Evidence as experiential motivation is not the same thing as evidence in the sense of the source of a proof. In fact evidence would not be the right word, it would be experience, which is relevant in Buddhism as well, I might add.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Logically I disbelieve in "God" for multiple logical reasons. Your disagreeing with it doesn't automatically debunk my claims. Your arguing against them is not perfect either. To be more accurate, I disbelieve that the question of "God"'s existence is even relevant or meaningful. Which by your skewed logic means I'm agnostic or skeptical, which is only partly right, since I'm atheist in the metaphysical sense of not having God-belief as part of my worldview.

Evidence as experiential motivation is not the same thing as evidence in the sense of the source of a proof. In fact evidence would not be the right word, it would be experience, which is relevant in Buddhism as well, I might add.

Nobody is asking you to care if God exists.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Part of logical consistency is something can not bring itself into existence. Since Philosophers believe knowledge is infinite, it needs an infinite provider.

I never said the universe brought itself into existence. Infinity is a concept I prefer not to attach to such things as knowledge, especially when analyzing it logically. Not to mention the term also has applicable but different meanings depending on the discipline you use it in. Infinite knowledge only suggests that there is knowledge both from the past and future which we either don't know or cannot know yet. Even if I granted some kind of cosmological necessity to the Big Bang, it doesn't suggest that the initiator of the Big Bang is the "God" you believe in, assuming that there was something like our time and space before the Big Bang