Are there any good arguments for God?

[McBell]

I am sorry for attacking you.

Apology accepted.

 

[Tiberius]

Exactly the opposite

So you are saying, "Prove God doesn't exist, why don't you prove that he does?"

 

[Tiberius]

I think you are trying to avoid answering. What difference does it make whether the brain is your possession or brain is a part of your's? Who has the control of "I"?

Let me illustrate. How does it make any difference if a toy bunny is battery powered (when on dying up of battery the bunny stops) or electrically controlled (when on switching off electricity, the bunny stops). The bunny dances not of its own volition. So, I am asking whether you know of the genesis of your own "I"? Are you in control of the "I"?

But if we consider the battery to be a part of the bunny, your claim that the "bunny dances not of its own volition" is wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

If a person needs to already be convinced of your conclusion before they'll believe what you're suggesting will lead to the conclusion, this is a sign that what you're proposing is seriously flawed.

"You'll find this compelling... if you already believe that it's true" isn't actually compelling.

I may have to steal this, you've phrased it very nicely.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm still (eagerly) awaiting for objective evidence that the physical universe exists.

There is none, just as you have no way of knowing that you are really you instead of just a brain in a jar. But the idea that there is a physical universe seems to be very consistent with itself (that is, there aren't any contradictions), so it seems reasonable to assume that it is there.

I know God exists.

How?

Within the physical universe / illusion, I feel the evidence for God is, how you say obvious. It is not hidden.

I'd be interested in seeing how you can back up this claim.

I do usually equate God with Love. Which is another word (symbol) that has many meanings. And many of those fall way short of how I understand the concept, as if the term has been distorted or adapted to only apply to physical things attracted to one another and then 'joining' (though, not really). So, then I'll use the combined terms of 'unconditional love' which for me is what Love is. When it is not 'unconditional,' it is not Love.

This suggests to me that your interpretation of God is entirely subjective. But iof it is subjective, how can you claim that you KNOW God exists?

I fully believe everyone reading this sentence (and countless others) have had own experiences and connections with Love. Thus, it makes abundant sense to me that ye are Gods. Which is evidence I consistently use to back up the claim God exists.

So redefining already existing words to mean God? Or are you redefining God to mean something for which we already have a perfectly good word?

 

[Tiberius]

The truth of the existence of God can be known by testing it for one's self.
The first thing that is needed of course is to first accept the possibility that God exists... Faith.

No.

I do not accept that possibility that there is a squirrel making a nest inside my ears. However, if I am given evidence that such an event is happening, I will accept it, despite the fact I claim it is impossible right now.

In other words, I can get a positive test for something even if I am convinced that no test will give a positive result. So I don't first need faith before I can find God.

 

[atanu]

But if we consider the battery to be a part of the bunny, your claim that the "bunny dances not of its own volition" is wrong.

How does it make any difference if battery is in the toy bunny? It dances not of its own volition. So, I am asking whether you know of the genesis of your own "I"? Are you in control of the "I"?

 

[Desert Snake]

What are the arguments against the existençe of god/s/?

 

[allfoak]

No.

I do not accept that possibility that there is a squirrel making a nest inside my ears. However, if I am given evidence that such an event is happening, I will accept it, despite the fact I claim it is impossible right now.

In other words, I can get a positive test for something even if I am convinced that no test will give a positive result. So I don't first need faith before I can find God.

Okay

 

[Acim]

There is none, just as you have no way of knowing that you are really you instead of just a brain in a jar. But the idea that there is a physical universe seems to be very consistent with itself (that is, there aren't any contradictions), so it seems reasonable to assume that it is there.

I can think of several contradictions to the idea there is a physical universe.

I think of it as reasonable to rely on faith in the universe as existing, to continue a life / experience of that universe.

How?

How do I know? Similar, though not the same, as knowing anything. How do you know you are reading these words right now?

I'd be interested in seeing how you can back up this claim.

This suggests to me that your interpretation of God is entirely subjective. But iof it is subjective, how can you claim that you KNOW God exists?

I find it to be self evident. I use empirical data that may or may not be subjectively defined, deduction, intuition, philosophical reasoning, confidence and/or faith.

So redefining already existing words to mean God? Or are you redefining God to mean something for which we already have a perfectly good word?

Not sure if it is perfectly good word as it has at least 2 meanings, one of which I do not actually think is Love, and more like a distorted version thereof. I do continuously find that God equals Love, though it could help to understand that via adjectives such as: unconditional love, or limitless love, or omnipresent love. All might appear to be (vastly different) distinctions, to some. To me, it is simply Love.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you are saying, "Prove God doesn't exist, why don't you prove that he does?"

Opposite as in the opposite belief; atheism. I turned a skeptical eye on that also, and realized there is no default truth, the burden of proof is on both beliefs.

 

[viole]

What are the arguments against the existençe of god/s/?

Probably the same as the arguments against the existence of invisible fairies.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

What are the arguments against the existençe of god/s/?

Why is an argument needed against the existence of an entity that cannot be shown to exist outside the wishful thinking of believers?

 

[ArtieE]

Opposite as in the opposite belief; atheism. I turned a skeptical eye on that also, and realized there is no default truth, the burden of proof is on both beliefs.

Sure. If for example you personally believe one or more gods exist you should be prepared to provide evidence for their existence, and if you believe the rest of the gods don't exist you should be prepared to provide evidence for their non-existence too.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sure. If for example you personally believe one or more gods exist you should be prepared to provide evidence for their existence, and if you believe the rest of the gods don't exist you should be prepared to provide evidence for their non-existence too.

I agree, just like steady state, big crunch, multiverses or any other atheist creation belief-

The difference being:

One belief acknowledges itself, its faith, its positive assertion as such. The other, atheism usually does not.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

 

[Shad]

Opposite as in the opposite belief; atheism. I turned a skeptical eye on that also, and realized there is no default truth, the burden of proof is on both beliefs.

No it isn't. One makes a claim, the other rejects it.

 

[Shad]

I agree, just like steady state, big crunch, multiverses or any other atheist creation belief-

The difference being:

One belief acknowledges itself, its faith, its positive assertion as such. The other, atheism usually does not.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

That is because theism is an assertion while atheism is the rejection of said assertion. There is no burden on a rejection when the assertion has not meet it's burden of proof.

It is amusing to see you acknowledge that theism is an assertion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I agree, just like steady state, big crunch, multiverses or any other atheist creation belief-

You gotta love how theories cosmology are atheist creations...except for the one that creationists like (the big bang theory), and even then only in the way they like (by creationist here I simply mean those who believe god created the universe; I am not referring to those who argue against evolutionary theory). Better still, it usually comes with a beautiful blend of special pleading and double dipping: the big bang is evidence for god because it suggests creation ex nihilo, and the universe must have a cause despite the fact that the big bang theory implies that causality CANNOT apply to the big bang itself.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree, just like steady state, big crunch, multiverses or any other atheist creation belief-

Just like belief in gods, if a theist or atheist believes in the steady state or the big crunch or multiverses or any other theory he should be prepared to provide evidence why he believes in them. If he doesn't believe in any of them and hasn't taken a stance he has no need to provide any evidence of course.

 

[ArtieE]

No it isn't. One makes a claim, the other rejects it.

1. A theist claims that gods exist.
2. A strong atheist claims that gods don't exist.
3. Some (weak) atheists reject both claims often because they think there's not enough evidence to justify any of them.