Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[SkyWriting]

No they point to. Going to find out via science. Which people are presently doing.No one is sure what came before the Big Bang, you're filling in the gap with nonsense to satisfy a weak curiosity. Like the original story tellers from the bible.

I'm talking about present conditions.
Nothing about the past.

Matter is generally not self-creating.
Matter is not generally procreating.
Matter tends to increase in entropy.
Matter is not usually infinite (in volume)

These scientific, testable properties of
matter are not very matter(ish)
and so point to God.

 

[quatona]

Matter is generally not self-creating.
Matter is not generally procreating.
Matter is tends to increase in entropy.
Matter in not usually infinite.

...and, while we are at it, matter is generally not created from nothing or spirit.

 

[SkyWriting]

...and, while we are at it, matter is generally not created from nothing or spirit.

Absolutely correct. Normally, it never happens.
I don't see it happening now, no reason to think
it ever naturally did or will.

 

[quatona]

Absolutely correct. Normally, it never happens.
I don't see it happening now, no reason to think
it ever naturally did or will.

Same with the other options - if you don´t work from a double standard.

 

[Colter]

Why do you assume god is good, other than the book says so?

The Earth from the beginning has had a molten mass centre, plates that are continually moving, a weather system from both extremes, atmosphere unable to protect us from Asteroids. And a long history of mass extermination. All happening long before Man arrived on the planet. Since Man arrived, we've had a pretty easy time of it. And yet a quick search will reveal lots of natural disasters killing innocent people who did no one any harm.
And yet you promote a book that's so far out of left field, it's good the people aren't successful with it.

It's blind faith in books with no proof they're right, that allows evil men to rape, abuse, demean, terrorise the weakest. Or just fleece people with fake books, healing, miracles or getting money so they can see a fake relic bit of cloth, wood, nail, bones, etc. Hard to shake off that back ground with a new book telling everyone they have the answer.

Or continually asking for a list of scientist who are still for an answer to your question. Which won't be that god created it.

Jesus revealed the goodness of God beyond the natural assumption. As the creator Son incarnate he experienced much of what we are called to experience as Gods children on an evolutionary world.

Why do you present yourself as the arbiter of what is far out?

 

[Joshua260]

The word "person" doesn't convey much to me. Did Jesus of Nazareth have a material body, just like you or me? IOWs, was he actually a man? Or was he an immaterial ghost or vision (as in Docetism)?

I don't see how this relates to the KCA and would rather stay on topic. Thank you.

 

[Colter]

The word "person" doesn't convey much to me. Did Jesus of Nazareth have a material body, just like you or me? IOWs, was he actually a man? Or was he an immaterial ghost or vision (as in Docetism)?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, the personality of the creator Son was the personality in the material child conceived the natural way between Jesus' earth parents who had been selected for such an honor. But from the conception to death of the mortal body Jesus was both human and divine in one miraculous individual. Inherent in his divinity was the power to not only lay down his life, but to take it up again.

Another divergence from the traditional story, influenced by Paganism, was this, Jesus didn't resurrect his material body rather it was a "morantia" form. Jesus returned in a likeness of his former mortal body. The celestials on the scene petitioned for and were granted their request to destroy the former mortal body if their master. The body Jesus returned in was the form that salvaged men and women will be restored in on the first mansion world. It's a kind of composite material/spiritual form.

As man passes through the many translations after this world, he becomes increasingly more spiritual and more relatively divine until he joins the ranks of the core of the finality when he can stand in the presence of the Universal Father on Paridise. But wait! That's not all, from their the Finalitors return to service in the universe in an unrevealed destiny perhaps in the now developing regions of outer space, beyond the borders of the current universes.

 

[KCfromNC]

You apparently do not understand the doctrine of the trinity sufficiently.

Neither does anyone else.

God is spirit, and has three "centers" of personhood.

And one of those was a fully human person with a material body, while the rest are immaterial sprit. But they're all one, so you end up with a being that is simultaneously material and not. Good luck getting around any of this without invoking one heresy or another.

Or you can just refuse to talk about it it is too difficult for your case. You brounght up the idea that whatever created the universe had to obey the law of noncontradiction, but if you need to drop it to make your particular god fit, no big deal.

 

[KCfromNC]

Plainly (and demonstrably) incorrect. I have always used the same version below:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.

Then you're in the wrong thread. This thread is for arguments in favor or against gods. If you're interested in discussing this argument, you should start your own thread.

 

[bhsmte]

He misses an important part. There is evidence in Genesis to the Age of Man.

Cain and Abel, the children of Adam and Eve, were farmers. Farming is at best 10,000 years old. Coming after 500,000 years of hunter gathering. And the Bible does give an age for the Earth, it's a few days. However the original Old Hebrew uses a word that could mens years.

Genesis 1:5
and “Elohiym [Powers]” called out to the light day and to the darkness he called out night and evening existed and morning existed one day,

A 24 hour day. Unless the a day in Genesis is billions of years. Just men making wrong into right. It happens all the time with religion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/five-mistakes-bible-translation_b_1129620.html

See how evil men use blind faith to their own ends. The truth is he's wrong, Adam wasn't white, he was tanned and wasn't the first either.



And Christians do the same. Which holds up if one doesn't ask questions. And gets the truth back. What we do know is no one has ever found a skeleton or drawing of a Unicorn from that time. So just men messing around with the bible, yet again.

Yes, many would agree with you and YEC's use this, to determine this age.

Here is the thing though, Willy knows, the evidence for the age of the universe and earth, is so overwhelming, that he would lose all credibility if he denied the same, so he goes along with it and agrees with it.

Then, what he must do then, is deny there is anyway to estimate an age of the universe in the bible, because he has a desire to maintain the credibility of the bible.

 

[bhsmte]

Wrong date. 497,000 years would be closer to the mark.

Another question would be.
Why did so many gods reveal themselves to so many other people long before the Jewish god?
Which god would that be. On older one, newer one, and what version should I use.

Does this relationship demand I stop thinking for myself?

Or not interested in questions you can't answer?

Where did you get the 497,000 year number from, I have read the consensus is around 200,000 for modern man?

This is a legit question though. Why would a God allow man to suffer on earth for this long before stepping in? Why would a God only allow Jesus to be exposed to so few and then require man accept Jesus as God to avoid doom? Sounds like he was not concerned about giving everyone on earth the same opportunity.

 

[Davian]

We both have conscious minds that transcend the material <snip>

How do you know this?

 

[Davian]

Let's review:
...

So there's no reason to think that just because the physical laws themselves might change, that the "law of causality" would have to change also.

Unless we consider what Hawking has to say. Is he wrong? Or, does he have to be wrong for your beliefs to be an accurate description of reality?

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang." link

 

[Davian]

You apparently do not understand the doctrine of the trinity sufficiently.

I don't think anyone understands it.

God is spirit, and has three "centers" of personhood.

What is "spirit"?

The second person of trinity of God became flesh in the man of Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not going to respond any more on this as it is off-topic. Go start a thread and we can discuss it.

Leave it in a mess if you like.

 

[Davian]

I would say, either of two somewhat related rationales:

1) The fine-tuning of the universe. It was what finally persuaded Anthony Flew, the Richard Dawkins of his day, though surely somewhat better educated and more intelligent than the latter.

"Tuning" can only be done to things that can be tuned; this has not been established for our universe.

2) The argument from design. The case for this gets stronger by the day, although the notion of its having come together by chance was always beyond farcical, anyway. The designs of the natural world, right down to the single-cell E-Coli virus, make the intelligence and understanding even today's scientists seem like that of little infants, barely able to draw a chalk line on a little blackboard. So much so that they study nature, in order to reverse-engineer its brilliant designs.

What would an allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful deity need with tuning? Is it not powerful enough to make it work however it likes? We could be living on the surface of the Sun. Now, that would be evidence for all-knowing, all-powerful deity.

The argument from design is an argument against biblical-type deities.

 

[Davian]

I am not interested in your question. If you are sincerely wanting to know the answer, then first establish a relationship with him. <snip>

Is this a two-way relationship?

 

[Davian]

Jesus does not say that God is material, nor that God is material and immaterial. Rather, Jesus explains that God is spirit (immaterial).
...

How did an immaterial whatever-it-was-made-of walk and talk in that hypothetical Garden of Eden?

 

[Davian]

I've just been converted.. To a Pastafarian. Come join me. http://www.venganza.org

Q: How do Pastafarians believe our world was created?
A: We believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world much as it exists today, but for reasons unknown made it appear that the universe is billions of years old (instead of thousands) and that life evolved into its current state (rather than created in its current form). Every time a researcher carries out an experiment that appears to confirm one of these “scientific theories” supporting an old earth and evolution we can be sure that the FSM is there, modifying the data with his Noodly Appendage. We don’t know why He does this but we believe He does, that is our Faith.

This works for me.

 

[Davian]

The reality of God is self evident.
...

Or, it isn't.

 

[Joshua260]

Or you can just refuse to talk about it it is too difficult for your case. You brounght up the idea that whatever created the universe had to obey the law of noncontradiction, but if you need to drop it to make your particular god fit, no big deal.

It would help if you would study up on the doctrine of the trinity first. Then maybe we'll continue this exchange.