we have no proofs about the existence of god

[Smylie]

Can you prove we're not in the matrix? Can you prove that space lord xemu doesn't exist?

The resurrection of Jesus Christ happened, did it not? Jesus Christ claimed to be the son of God, not the son of the space lord xemu.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

The resurrection of Jesus Christ happened, did it not? Jesus Christ claimed to be the son of God, not the son of the space lord xemu.

Well, your argument was "People can't disprove God", so I assumed you were implying "therefore God exists". I was showing that this is a pointless thing to say. You can't disprove that we're in a computer simulation. Therefore we are probably in a computer simulation?

Either that, or "X can't disprove Y" is not a meaningful argument.

 

[Almost there]

Sure, but it just kind of underlines why it's not a good argument for any one belief. Also, it's kind of self-defeating, since God himself was clearly not designed, therefore intelligence does not inherently imply design

It's not a good argument for any one belief, but it is a good argument for design. Sure, someone, of highly motivated, could deny that there was intelligent design behind anything that exists that man can't create, but that's not really an argument.

Fact is, when it comes to that sort of stuff, all any of us can do is observe, experiment, and come up with our own personal opinions. And they are all equally valid, in the end, but for different reasons.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

It's not a good argument for any one belief, but it is a good argument for design. Sure, someone, of highly motivated, could deny that there was intelligent design behind anything that exists that man can't create, but that's not really an argument.

Fact is, when it comes to that sort of stuff, all any of us can do is observe, experiment, and come up with our own personal opinions. And they are all equally valid, in the end, but for different reasons.

I think you missed the second part of my post there though. The problem is that God himself was not designed by anyone, yet He exists. So therefore, if you believe in God, you believe intelligent things can exist without being designed. Thus the argument is self-defeating.

 

[Almost there]

I think you missed the second part of my post there though. The problem is that God himself was not designed by anyone, yet He exists. So therefore, if you believe in God, you believe intelligent things can exist without being designed. Thus the argument is self-defeating.

Everything except God.

Thing is, some things our outside our ability to even form a mental model. It doesn't mean they are not what they are.

 

[SolomonVII]

I think you missed the second part of my post there though. The problem is that God himself was not designed by anyone, yet He exists. So therefore, if you believe in God, you believe intelligent things can exist without being designed. Thus the argument is self-defeating.

God does not exist as a designed thing.
God is not a thing. Only things are things.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

God does not exist as a designed thing.
God is not a thing. Only things are things.

I don't mean "material things", I mean "something that exists"

 

[looking_for_answers_]

Everything except God.

Thing is, some things our outside our ability to even form a mental model. It doesn't mean they are not what they are.

So if you can accept that there are things outside of our ability to form a mental model, why draw the line at "this looks designed to me"? I accept that I cannot comprehend that fact that at least one intelligent, conscious thing exists without being designed so therefore neither intelligence or consciousness inherently require having been designed by something.

 

[Hieronymus]

maybe spiritual proofs but not material proofs that unbelievers want

Would anything exist if God didn't exist?
Most unbelievers don't want any proof at all.

 

[Almost there]

So if you can accept that there are things outside of our ability to form a mental model, why draw the line at "this looks designed to me"? I accept that I cannot comprehend that fact that at least one intelligent, conscious thing exists without being designed so therefore neither intelligence or consciousness inherently require having been designed by something.

I don't. I can comprehend evolution so it's outside the argument I was making. If someone can convince me, though the scientific method, I'll buy it. But it's a daunting task, like proving to me that my wife doesn't exist.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

I don't. I can comprehend evolution so it's outside the argument I was making. If someone can convince me, though the scientific method, I'll buy it. But it's a daunting task, like proving to me that my wife doesn't exist.

Not talking about evolution. Talking about "I exist so God must have designed me" as an argument for God's existence.

God exists and is un-designed. So why do you think design is a necessary thing for existence?

 

[Almost there]

Not talking about evolution. Talking about "I exist so God must have designed me" as an argument for God's existence.

God exists and is un-designed. So why do you think design is a necessary thing for existence?

I'm saying design explains it adequately until a better answer comes along. And the fact that I have a relationship with the designer makes it more difficult to convince me of some other explanation.

And to me the question is binary. That is, either someone designed it, or it happened by accident.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

I'm saying design explains it adequately until a better answer comes along. And the fact that I have a relationship with the designer makes it more difficult to convince me of some other explanation.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. This is a philosophy forum and OP started this thread to discuss what we might consider proofs of God's existence.

And to me the question is binary. That is, either someone designed it, or it happened by accident.

What I'm trying to point out is that you can ask the same (well, similar) thing about God.

Maybe I'm not understanding the argument correctly so correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's this:

A) If something is not random, it is orderly
B) If something is orderly, it must have have a designer.

Given that
C) I am not random

We conclude that
D) I am orderly (A, C)
Therefore
E) I must have a designer (B, D)

Which I think is the common argument.

But you can also say
F) God is not random

So
G) God is orderly (A, F)
and
H) God must have a designer (B, G)

But this is utterly preposterous and would lead to and infinite regression. So (B) has to be false.

Therefore a designer must not be necessary for orderliness

Again, please correct me if I have misrepresented the argument

 

[ToBeLoved]

So if you can accept that there are things outside of our ability to form a mental model, why draw the line at "this looks designed to me"? I accept that I cannot comprehend that fact that at least one intelligent, conscious thing exists without being designed so therefore neither intelligence or consciousness inherently require having been designed by something.

So, is what your saying is that you think that humans have the highest mental model and since you cannot fathom a conciousness or intelligence existing without being created,than God must have been created?

Is that correct?

 

[looking_for_answers_]

So, is what your saying is that you think that humans have the highest mental model and since you cannot fathom a conciousness or intelligence existing without being created,than God must have been created?

Is that correct?

No... sorry, my writing may not be very clear admittantly. I'm trying to say that, if I believe that it is possible for order to exist without a designer (which must be true, since God is orderly, but did not have a designer), then the argument being made above (the Universe is orderly, so it must have had a designer) is not a good argument for God's existence.

I wrote a longer proof here, please feel free to critique: https://www.christianforums.com/thr...xistence-of-god.8044377/page-13#post-72252478

 

[SolomonVII]

I don't mean "material things", I mean "something that exists"

Exactly. The existence of God is not as some "thing".
This is something that God explains to Moses, all those thousands of years ago, when asked for his name.
He tells Moses "I am", and leaves it at that.
Things are designed. The very essence of existence however is of a different order. This mystery is an ancient truth. God has never been defined as an infinite regression.

 

[Almost there]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. This is a philosophy forum and OP started this thread to discuss what we might consider proofs of God's existence.



What I'm trying to point out is that you can ask the same (well, similar) thing about God.

Maybe I'm not understanding the argument correctly so correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's this:

A) If something is not random, it is orderly
B) If something is orderly, it must have have a designer.

Given that
C) I am not random

We conclude that
D) I am orderly (A, C)
Therefore
E) I must have a designer (B, D)

Which I think is the common argument.

But you can also say
F) God is not random

So
G) God is orderly (A, F)
and
H) God must have a designer (B, G)

But this is utterly preposterous and would lead to and infinite regression. So (B) has to be false.

Therefore a designer must not be necessary for orderliness

Again, please correct me if I have misrepresented the argument

You are talking about orderlyness. I'm talking about orderlyness as applied to almost unconscionable complexity. And when you add my personal relationship with the creator into the mix, well, you see where I'm coming from.

I used to say that evolutionists are like a guy arguing that a '57 chevy rusting away in a field was created by rust, in spite of the obvious signs that it was not only created, but created for a purpose.

They will argue that that is because we know who made it. My response: Exactly.

Of course, if you never saw a human being before, and are from a different planet where nothing like a human being exists, you wouldn't know who made it, but it would still be obvious from its attributes, complexity and order, that someone designed it.

Same thing with creation in general.

The problem is that it is what we've known since leaving the womb and don't appreciate it for what it is. And for some of us, we are desperate to NOT believe that it was designed, so we work hard to come up with other possible explanations. I see two general categories of reasons for that, both related:
1. We don't want to believe there is a designer due to the implications.
2. We worship our own intelligence and simply will not accept that something we don't understand and can't disprove is actually true.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

You are talking about orderlyness. I'm talking about orderlyness as applied to almost unconscionable complexity.

You can repeat the same argument with "unconscionable complexity" instead of orderliness though. And if God could create the universe, it seems fair to assume that He Himself must be even more complex

And when you add my personal relationship with the creator into the mix, well, you see where I'm coming from.

I used to say that evolutionists are like a guy arguing that a '57 chevy rusting away in a field was created by rust, in spite of the obvious signs that it was not only created, but created for a purpose.

They will argue that that is because we know who made it. My response: Exactly.

A Hindu/Muslim/etc. would say the same thing... This gets back to the weakness of the architect analogy we were talking about earlier. There are a ton of architects responsible for designing this building.

Of course, if you never saw a human being before, and are from a different planet where nothing like a human being exists, you wouldn't know who made it, but it would still be obvious from its attributes, complexity and order, that someone designed it.

Same thing with creation in general.

The problem is that it is what we've known since leaving the womb and don't appreciate it for what it is.

And for some of us, we are desperate to NOT believe that it was designed, so we work hard to come up with other possible explanations. I see two general categories of reasons for that, both related:
1. We don't want to believe there is a designer due to the implications.
2. We worship our own intelligence and simply will not accept that something we don't understand and can't disprove is actually true.

I similarly used to feel this way about non-believers, until I began to meet people who fit into "none of the above", who did indeed want to believe in an Almighty, loving Creator, but just weren't convicinced. People who didn't worship their own intelligence, but felt that they just didn't know, and were willing to admit it. It was also when I found that non-Christians were using the exact some logic that you're using above, but found that it pointed to their beliefs, just like I had previously been convinced that it incontrivertibly pointed to mine.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Not talking about evolution. Talking about "I exist so God must have designed me" as an argument for God's existence.

God exists and is un-designed. So why do you think design is a necessary thing for existence?

Design sounds like an aetheist word.

We believe that God exists.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

Design sounds like an aetheist word.

"Design" is a word used far, far more by Creationists/Christians than anyone else...