god

[Blackhawk]

Show me one cold hard fact that proves, without a doubt, that your God exists and your Bible rings true.

I can give you thousands of proofs saying they aren't.

Okay give me one of those thousands. I bet you can't. Remember you said proofs.

Basically no one can give you what you're asking for either way. We used to have an anouncement in GA that stated that one could not ask for proof of God's existence because there is no logical proof. There is no 100% cold hard fact or facts that will prove that God exists or does not. It ismore reasonable to me to believe in God because of the classical proofs of God'sexistence although I do not think that they are proofs. Also I beleive because of my relationship with Him. I also believe for many other reasons objective and subjective. But there is no 100% provable cold hard fact that proves that any God exists.

 

[God of Atheism]

ACougar- You have said nothing that you didn't already say. You didn't answer the question either. Your God is still worthless and unnesscary to me. You have proved nothing. I consider the Greek and Roman temples, built in the name of their Gods, much more beautiful than the paintings done by the classic painters depicting your own God or your Virgin Mary.

There is no doubt these paintings are breathtaking, but they are only imagination. The painting 'Red Dragon' was incredible as well but there's no real, physical Red Dragon. Just like there is no real, physical, Saviour.

Blackhawk- I see you are alot more sensible than many of the Christians I deal with. They are totally convinced that they have 100% proof that their God is real, of course if they did I would be a Christian.

As for proof, I can give you one that is very simple. An all-powerful being is impossible because of paradoxes. For example:

If God is all-powerful, this means he could do anything. If he wanted to, he could build a wall that not even he could knock down. Now, if he built this wall and was unable to knock it down, he can't do everything. If he couldn't build a wall that he couldn't knock down, he is not all-powerful. Even God must have some type of limits.

There is even a verse someone quoted in another board that says God cannot lie. Not all-powerful anymore, is he?

But let's examine the most faulty area in the Bible to date. The Resurrection. I forget the exact address but one of the apostles said 'If Christ is not risen your faith is in vain.' or something of that sort. I'll look for the quote.

The Resurrection accounts are the most contradictory in the Bible, and that means something. I challenge any of you out there to write a timeline of the Resurrection accounts without contradicting another part of them. From who carried the cross until after the tomb is entered and Jesus found gone, give me a timeline. You can't do it.

Multi-Elia- What started me onto atheism? Depression and anger, to be honest. Life was getting ever worse for me, no matter how much faith I had. Much of it, actually, got worse because of the influence of the Bible. I began to hate God for what he had done to me and the rest of the world. For what he had let happen. I harnessed this anger because I am a rational person and decided to try to find a rational explanation for my veiws. I did. I found all the information I could ever have wanted and so I decided to help others find the peace of mind I feel now, knowing that I have the truth safe and sound under my belt.

And you also asked what I would say qualifies as proof. Well, this is hard to describe. My best friend, a devout Christian, sent me a photo of a ship on top of a mountain that was supposedly Noah's Ark. That was physical proof it happened except for a few things; there is no fossilized evidence the flood happened, in fact, there is nothing but that boat. And the people who went to examine the boat each gave testimonies and they all contradicted each other. I consider this the closest to cold hard evidence that I have been show yet, but it was still lacking.

 

[ACougar]

ACougar- You have said nothing that you didn't already say. You didn't answer the question either. Your God is still worthless and unnesscary to me. You have proved nothing. I consider the Greek and Roman temples, built in the name of their Gods, much more beautiful than the paintings done by the classic painters depicting your own God or your Virgin Mary.

There is no doubt these paintings are breathtaking, but they are only imagination. The painting 'Red Dragon' was incredible as well but there's no real, physical Red Dragon. Just like there is no real, physical, Saviour.

I do not think you have been reading my posts carefully. Look at the tree outside your window, you see an aspect of my God. Look in the mirror, there is an aspect of my God, my God is in all things, She is the Creator who gave birth to the Herself. Contained within her are all things. I am not Christian, I do not accept the concept of sin nor do I feel a need for any type of savior.

 

[God of Atheism]

I do not think you have been reading my posts carefully. Look at the tree outside your window, you see an aspect of my God. Look in the mirror, there is an aspect of my God, my God is in all things, She is the Creator who gave birth to the Herself. Contained within her are all things. I am not Christian, I do not accept the concept of sin nor do I feel a need for any type of savior.

I had a feeling you weren't Christian by the way you mentioned God as a 'She.' Of course, like I said, I am not prepared to debate other religions. I have not studied them. But the tree outside my window was cut down long ago. The tree I used to climb and laugh in, my refuge from the world and from pain. It was ripped in two by the blades of a chainsaw years ago. Is this your God? Regardless, this is evidence for your God as much as it is the Christian's.

 

[Tempest]

You seem to be seeking something...be it something to believe in, an argument, etc. I hope you find what you're looking for.

 

[Multi-Elis]

I find this interesting.
I never searched for God. Neither did I try to find proofs. I read a book about the evidence of life after death, that was convicing enough for me. But I have saught God, to know Him better. He did appear to me in an unexpected way. I don't know why I found him, nor why you didn't. All I know, is that if I were to deny God's existance, no matter how hard life would get, I would be denying very important experiences, the health of my brother, etc...

I began to hate God for what he had done to me and the rest of the world.

What if it isn't God who did all that?
Maybe he did, indirectly. Do humans have any responsability in this story?
I've talked with other athiests before. Their morality was very different from mine. They claimed to be satisfied with the way they are. They couldn't admit that they weren't perfect, but yet hated themselves. That is about the time I started to appreciate Camue's contrabution to philosophy, though I strongly don't agree with some of his stuff.

 

[Magisterium]

well, I applaud all of the valiant efforts in making a case for God. However, there's a proverb by Augustine ( I think ) which I've found to be absolutely true:
"for the believer, no explanation is necessary, for the unbeliever, no explanation is sufficient"

None the less, I'll present a brief scientific case for God derived from Aquinas' Suma theologica.

Scientifically speaking, the fundamental aspect of existence is motion. Matter that exists, gains it's motion from some other object in motion who in turn gained it's motion from another object. Even matter which appears still only maintains existence by the bonds betwween its atoms who's electrons are in a perpetual state of motion around the atomic neuclei.
Aquinas presents God as the initial mover.
Motion is defined as a change in position. Change in position requires energy. We know from Physics 101 that the net energy in any system can be no greater than the amount of energy placed into that system. Therefore, science proves that the initial mover necessarilly posesses at least as much energy as the universe it "moved" into existence.
Additionally, the initial mover is necessarilly intelligent. The reason for this is that he is moved by nothing (if he were, he wouldn't be the initial mover). Because he is moved by nothing, his "initial movement" is necessarilly decided.
Hopefully, you were able to follow that.

Additionally, I'l appeal to emotion:
Athiests often asked of G. K. Chesterton: "if there's a God, why is there suffering" tired of answering the question again and again, Chesterton finally replies: "If there's no God, then why is there pleasure?"

I therefore pose his question to you sceptics as well, the concept of human pleasure is totally illogical scientifically speaking. Particularly the pleasures I'm speaking of, are the wonder and awe of simply looking at the Sky, and the heavens. As well as the wonderment at nature. Additionally, man's undeniable thirst for happiness and understanding surpass all that is logically necessary for "natural survival". I know the arguments that sexual pleasure and the pleasure derived from food are to preserve the species, but they fail under close scrutiny in that for instance, the most intensly pleasurable sexual practices do not yield offspring, likewise, the most pleasurable foods and drink, actually fatten the person shortening the life span and making them the weakest and slowest... what say you?

 

[Brimshack]

You can assert that pleasure is illogical without God, but there is absolutely no reason to accept the statement as true. As to your (Chesterton's) account the argument from evil, it is eliptical to the point of being a straw man. If you leave out the bulk of the argument, then I suppose you can reduce it to such absudities, but that's hardly a reasonable account of the topic.

You account of the Prime Mover argument appears to lack a key point or two as well.

 

[Magisterium]

You can assert that pleasure is illogical without God, but there is absolutely no reason to accept the statement as true. As to your (Chesterton's) account the argument from evil, it is eliptical to the point of being a straw man. If you leave out the bulk of the argument, then I suppose you can reduce it to such absudities, but that's hardly a reasonable account of the topic.

You account of the Prime Mover argument appears to lack a key point or two as well.

First of all, you apparently do not know what a straw man is. I don't have time here to explain it to you. Ironically, your response to my points constitutes one!

Instead of attempting to refute my points about pleasure and possibly point out some logical inconsistency, you resort to trivializing it with no substantive argument. As far it being elliptical (which means in this case intentionally obscure) I was concise and straight to the point. Which appears to be something you lack...

Additionally, you state that my initial mover presentation "lacks a point or two as well". Again you don't bother to point out what those points are. This is actually another straw man presented by YOU. Please respond when you have some substantive reasonable response.

Thank you..

 

[Brimshack]

The argument from evil requires the assumption that God is both omnipotent and that he is omnibenevolent. It is an argument which turns on the inconsistency of a specific version of God, not an argument which purports to turn a fact about the universe into an objective argument against God in all forms. The version you present leaves that out in order to make the existence of suffering into a sufficient argument in itself. This makes the comparison with pleasure seem more superficially plausible. Since your counter requires a deliberate elision of one of the central planks of the original argument, it is therefore a straw man, but feel free to teach me what a straw man is if you like.

As to the notion that pleasure is illogical, you make no argument to establish this assertion. Whether or not science can explain the sensation is an interesting question, but the lack of an explanation does not entail a logical absurdity. The evolutionary theories on the matter are not as abstract as you suggest. What is bbeneficial in some contexts may be harmful in others. So, the prospect that sugar can cause fat does not preclude the prospect that it could have held benefits in different stages of evolution.

As to your version of the Prime Mover argument, you haven't even stated it in the form of an argument. So, I don't know how you could expect a more thorough criticism from me. It reads more like a metaphor that you seem to like. You spend one paragraph establishing that matter is motion, …Ok? Then you say that Aquinas presents God as the initial mover …okay? In order to generate a prima facie argument you ought to have shown why a prime mover is needed, not merely that it is an interesting elaboration on motion. This necessity doesn't follow at all from the simple fact that everything is in motion. The rest of your pasage merely elaborates on the ASSUMPTION that God is the prime mover (must have more energy and must be intelligenct) rather than establishing that such a being is necessary in the first place.

Oh and I really love the amusing barrage of tu quoque arguments. Facing the assertion that you've attacked a straw man, you simply assert that I don't know what it is and accuse me of doing the same without even the briefest of hints at how I did that. Facing the assertion that your argument is eliptical you say the same about me, and having complained because I didn't write enough, you tell me I'm not concise and to the point. So, I guess this is where I say; 'No you are", and then you say; "No, you are." and so on…

 

[Magisterium]

Very well written!

Apparently you do know what a straw man is. I appreciate your well written response and I apologize for my demeaning tone. (I didn;t expect from the lack of substance in your first response, that there were actually wheels turning) I stand humbly corrected.

As for the statement about pleasure being illogical. As I initially stated, this statement is intended as a response to those who would pose as an argument against God, the existence of suffering. Obviously you see the error in such an argument and would not bother to pose it in the first place. However, that said, it does not constitute a straw man in that it simply engages the contender on their own flawed terms without spending the time to "correct" the "flawed premise" which you pointed out. Particularly because this "flawed premise" "that God is both omnipotent and that he is omnibenevolent" is precisely my perspective and point. Therefore to tear it down in order to correct the initial argument would in the long run be counter productive from my standpoint.

Now for the initial mover. That statement was made with the assumption that the reader has relatively advanced understanding of physics and quantum mechanics. The scientific method of tracing the origins of existence on the scientific law of cause and effect. This chain of cause and effect can be traced through history and time. Through examination of current effects, science is able to discern immediate causes. These immediate causes are then examined, revealing that they are actually the effect of some other cause... and so it continues. The Theory of Evolution and the "Big Bang" are examples of this scientific method. I omitted the cause and effect explanation to the initial mover because I assumed that the scientific reader would be familiar with it and understand the implication. At any rate, the fundamental scientific principal of cause and effect correlated to the fact that motion is the fundamental aspect of existence, make the initial mover an absolute necessity.

 

[Brimshack]

LOL, I guess I could have done more the first time. This one will be short too though.

On the First Cause, the problem isn't the lack of a cause and effect relationshio, it is establishing the impossibility of an infinite regress. Without it, there is no need for a prime mover. But I see no reason to reject such a possibility to begin with.

On the argument from evil, are you suggesting that God is not both omnipotent and ominbenevolent? If so, then the argument from evil has no consequences for you. I just want to make sure that is your actual position.

 

[Magisterium]

LOL, I guess I could have done more the first time. This one will be short too though.

On the First Cause, the problem isn't the lack of a cause and effect relationshio, it is establishing the impossibility of an infinite regress . Without it, there is no need for a prime mover. But I see no reason to reject such a possibility to begin with.

On the argument from evil, are you suggesting that God is not both omnipotent and ominbenevolent? If so, then the argument from evil has no consequences for you. I just want to make sure that is your actual position.

Well, scientifically speaking, the idea of an infinite regress is illogical in that with each examined cause, the causes increase in potency while the effects decrease. This relationship necessitates that at some point (however long ago) the balance was purely on the side of cause, before the first act (or effect). Therefore an indefinite regress is acceptable in that is remains undefined, but an infinite regress is not logical.

As for my position about God, I do understand Him to be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Therefore to point out to an opponent that their argument rests on that assumption and giving them an opportunity to "correct" it, is counter productive.

 

[Brimshack]

I don't know what scientific principles you are referring to; it sounds more like metaphysical speculation to me. Suffice to say that I find no reason to accept your assertions on the subject.

And I find your last response on the argument from evil rather bizarre. I'm not interested in what you find convenient to your position and what seems counter-productive to your agenda. The point is that if you believe that God has both attributes, then the argument from evil applies, and Chesterton's response is simply a straw man as applied to the belief in question.

 

[Jet Black]

Now for the initial mover. That statement was made with the assumption that the reader has relatively advanced understanding of physics and quantum mechanics. The scientific method of tracing the origins of existence on the scientific law of cause and effect. This chain of cause and effect can be traced through history and time. Through examination of current effects, science is able to discern immediate causes. These immediate causes are then examined, revealing that they are actually the effect of some other cause...

the laws of physics at t<the planck time are unknown, and hence the prime mover argument is flawed, in that it makes an assumption about something which is not yet understood and testable. The early universe looks completely different in both it's rules and mechanisms, and it is not yet known if such things as energy conservation and so on actually apply. We are still wondering why there were not equal amounts of matter and antimatter, or, if there were, why we have less antimatter now than matter. Furthermore, it implies some intelligence, which is not nescessarily required.
Another issue is that of quantum mechanics. While quantum mechanics will require some serious work to get it to talk to General Relativity, doubtless the two will be simplifications of a more unified theory, and aspects of both will be present in it. Quantum mechanics is quite open to the possibility of causeless effects, for example virtual particles, and the nondeterministim seen in interactions and measurement.