Are there any good arguments for God?

[outhouse]

Something had to have

Again we don't know is the best answer.

Things don't just explode or expand, especially when the thing expanding is nothing.

A singularity can be defined as "we don't know".

My personal belief is a super massive black hole expanded after feeding to much, maybe tow collided. Its imaginative at best. We dont know.

Nothing should be here if the universe or evolution has no cause

Non sequitur


We know evolution is a product of this earths and the environment we are all part of "nature"

The universe again "we don't know" but what we do know for a fact, is that the universe is full of singularities so they seem to be a typical part of nature.

 

[McBell]

The argument about the existence of God boils down to one question, how did the universe come to be.

That presumes an assumption of facts not in evidence, which most often leads to a false conclusion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Something had to have.

The same evidence that leads us to think (contra Einstein, physics, and cosmology before sometime after Einstein developed general relativity) that the universe originated with the big bang leads us to think that time began to exist with the big bang. We have little if anything to tell us how anything could cause something without a time in which this cause could exist or in which anything could "happen" or in which there could be a cause before an effect (and so on).

Things don't just explode or expand, especially when the thing expanding is nothing.

"Things" don't do anything without space or time to do it in. The state of reality that existed when the big bang did not is not subject to anything we might hope to glean by understanding how "thing" do anything in this universe.

Nothing should be here if the universe or evolution has no cause.

Why not? Let's assume the naïve, false model wherein which "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Fine. The universe never "began to exist." Beginning implies that there was a time at which the universe did not exist and then a time it did. There was no such time. Time was when the universe was, and there was no "began" because there was no "before" in which the universe could be said not to be. Put in more comfortable terms, what's North of the North pole?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Something had to have.

I decided to respond to this more in-depth here: The Big Bang as evidence for God

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Mine are supportable or I would not post it.

What caused the First Cause?

The who made God argument , only logical answer to this from both sides is , we don't know . Is one for the don't knows , would it benefit life on earth if we did ?.

My own logic a human life is less than 0.00000002 % of age of just our universe , is it not safe to say in human terms by comparison it has always been here , again in comparison the number also suggests an organism even with several generations learned experience under his belt is still really newb in the bigger picture of things.

1400 years ago it was stated in the Quran (Koran, the book of Islam) that angels travel in one day the same distance that the moon travels in 1000 lunar years .

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'd just buy some earplugs , can I have this can I have that , sick of hearing it .
God uses e=mc2 is a measure of how many victims is required to keep the ball rolling per se

???? ?

Something had to have. Things don't just explode or expand, especially when the thing expanding is nothing.

If and when we ever retrieve evidence from "before" or "outside" the universe, only then can we say whether things don't just explode or not. After all, one of the points of contention is whether a supernatural realm exists.

We're here. If you follow that line of thinking we shouldn't be here. Nothing should be here if the universe or evolution has no cause. Evolution wouldn't even be in existence. And yet here we are arguing.

If the supernatural exists, something could have started without a natural cause, or maybe not even a cause at all.

That presumes an assumption of facts not in evidence, which most often leads to a false conclusion.

There's only one fact: The universe started. The dichotomy is whether that start was caused or not. There is no assumption made, only what if speculation based on it being caused or not caused.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The evidence says otherwise, given there is a God in the first place.

What possible evidence could tell us that an all-powerful god is incapable of something?

If there is a God, that would be the only reason for It to say hidden, so as not to interact.

But here you are in the thread, making all sorts of claims about the nature of God. Is God hidden (and therefore your claims about God have no justification), or is God not hidden (and therefore you're just wrong)?

A non-interactive God or no God are the only two models

... if we're keeping wild claims just because they're unfalsifiable. The evidentiary support is less (has to be less, IMO) for a non-interactive God than it is for an interactive God, so if we're going to disregard the one, we should also be disregarding the other, IMO.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that as long as I've been a deist, but maintaining our free will is all I've been able to come up with, I, or anyone else.

So... your theology depends on the existence of free will (however you define "free will")?

Of course most other non-deists/atheists can only come up with an interactive god(s) which doesn't fit the facts.

As opposed to the deistic view, which is merely not supported by any facts. I'm not sure that this is an improvement.

If we're hear to try to live righteously and pursue the Truth, it looks like a no-brainer, though the other side appears to have beaten me to it.




The best option for doing what's right is in the eye of the beholder with free will. Unfortunately that choice is all to often determined by the "beholder" to be that he is the most important one in his world--thus justifying murder etc. in his mind. ERGO, a moral double standard is the root of all evil.


Morality is honoring equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud.


Now, isn't that moral code, in one simple sentence (a restatement of the Golden Rule), a whole lot more reasonable than all the many different and extensive holy scriptures and revelations purveyed by the plethora of religions in the world? And the only ("only" ) requisite to have the capacity to come up with or recognize this, each on his own, is full self-awareness.

You do realize that none of this actually answers my question, right?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

But here you are in the thread, making all sorts of claims about the nature of God. Is God hidden (and therefore your claims about God have no justification), or is God not hidden (and therefore you're just wrong)?

Valid point , intellegence itself after non starter replies the instinct is log out an walk away , the realization nothing can be achieved over such a medium .
However by the very nature of this site , a constant stream of victims is required to feed the lions of rf , or there is no thread.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But here you are in the thread, making all sorts of claims about the nature of God. Is God hidden (and therefore your claims about God have no justification), or is God not hidden (and therefore you're just wrong)?

I'm not claiming anything. I'm merely making reasonable speculations, fitting the speculation that God exists with the exclusively natural, rational evidence we find here in the universe.

... if we're keeping wild claims just because they're unfalsifiable. The evidentiary support is less (has to be less, IMO) for a non-interactive God than it is for an interactive God, so if we're going to disregard the one, we should also be disregarding the other, IMO.

Evidence for divine interaction, revelation or miracles = 0. Evidence that the universe is exclusively rational = virtually infinite. So while that doesn't constitute hard proof, it does undermine claims of the supernatural as being false. Creationism vs. evolution is this same principle exemplified.

So... your theology depends on the existence of free will (however you define "free will")?

Not just the existence of free will, but its protection and continuation--free will being the ability to choose between good and evil. (We obviously can't choose to make ourselves free from natural law such as gravity etc.)

As opposed to the deistic view, which is merely not supported by any facts. I'm not sure that this is an improvement.

Deism is supported by the total absence of any evidence beyond hearsay for the supernatural and divine revelation.



You do realize that none of this actually answers my question, right?[/QUOTE]

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You do realize that none of this actually answers my question, right?

Sorry, I looked but couldn't find it.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is this your question, that SFT quoted? "But here you are in the thread, making all sorts of claims about the nature of God. Is God hidden (and therefore your claims about God have no justification), or is God not hidden (and therefore you're just wrong)?"

How does God being hidden negate anything? I'm only presenting the most likely motivation, if God exists, for why It would be hidden, and there being no evidence for God non-interaction..

 

[outhouse]

The who made God argument , only logical answer to this from both sides is , we don't know

There is no argument, we know who made god and we know it in detail.

There is only evidence from the academic side, none on the other.

would it benefit life on earth if we did ?.

yes truth is important.

It is important that we break free of ancient men constant mistakes of attributing nature to mythology

1400 years ago it was stated in the Quran (Koran, the book of Islam) that angels travel in one day the same distance that the moon travels in 1000 lunar years .

That has no credibility at all. It is factually not historical

 

[outhouse]

The who made God argument ,

That mythology has nothing to do with first cause.


These first cause arguments are however known as modern pseudoscience.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

There is no argument, we know who made god and we know it in detail.

There is only evidence from the academic side, none on the other.



yes truth is important.

It is important that we break free of ancient men constant mistakes of attributing nature to mythology



That has no credibility at all. It is factually not historical

Oright we share common goal , but from different angles , yours is complicated open to assumptions , detailed observation and conclusion whom need a level of intelligence to be able to comprehend science is a specialist subject of subjects .
I didn't like history only got to hear one side , no masters is better than a biased one ?.
Perception , pretend your the man/women on earth , what is the most beautiful thing you see after being here a few days ? And don't say your own reflection

 

[outhouse]

Oright we share common goal , but from different angles , yours is complicated open to assumptions , detailed observation and conclusion whom need a level of intelligence to be able to comprehend science is a specialist subject of subjects .

We have different goals I believe sir.

My goal is to share academic knowledge and what is known academically in context to the bible. My education is in biblical history not scientific knowledge in opposition to biblical knowledge.

I didn't like history only got to hear one side ,

Well I teach/lecture biblical history at a college, so your going to get what is known as the middle of the road opinion. When I do deviate from that I often will let people know.

Perception , pretend your the man/women on earth , what is the most beautiful thing you see after being here a few days ?

It is really non sequitur

But it would depend where I'm geographically at. I love the mountain views from my back porch

 

[Milton Platt]

The fact that people are still asking this question implies that the answer is no.

 

[RedDragon94]

Again we don't know is the best answer.



A singularity can be defined as "we don't know".

My personal belief is a super massive black hole expanded after feeding to much, maybe tow collided. Its imaginative at best. We dont know.




Non sequitur


We know evolution is a product of this earths and the environment we are all part of "nature"

The universe again "we don't know" but what we do know for a fact, is that the universe is full of singularities so they seem to be a typical part of nature.

Well it's better to have a theory than just repeat the same thing over and over like it's that great that you don't know anything. At the end of the day does it help a person find any meaning to not even try?

 

[RedDragon94]

things

Not things, nothing. You're saying that an explosion or expansion just happened in the middle of nothing and now we're here.

If the supernatural exists, something could have started without a natural cause, or maybe not even a cause at all.

Not something physical though.

 

[Tiberius]

Reality exists. It's not provided any answers, but it exists.

How can you say that when it is the investigation of reality (often called SCIENCE) that has provided so many answers. What keeps the sun shining? How do tides work? How can I avoid getting ill? Science provides answers.

 

[Tiberius]

The observable universe is 91 billion light years in diameter.

The furthest man has physically travelled as a species is to the moon, which is only 1.3 light seconds away.

given our infintesimally small exploration of the universe, and considering that as a proportion of all the knowledge which may be possible, our certainty is demonstratably dellusional.

Is this the old, "We don't know everything, so religion MIGHT be true" argument?