Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[Sargonski]

I am my father after my mother formed me from herself. I am a living soul. I existed as my dad before I became who I am though my mothers input and ability for the making, and baking, and birthing of.


"remembering our definition for soul .. The "I AM" that I AM"

That's your definition of soul, but there are many souls from past to present that became from the one who is able to create. The dividing of a single cell organism into two parts, and then on to 8, etc. until that cell becomes what we are able to acknowledge as ourselves.

If you're speaking about the id, I understand the premise, but there is a far greater work in play than just a single self awareness and an individual's identity. At least when it comes to people like us, who are formed from that which is able, and have separated as ourselves, now able to acknowledge a self who exists within a greater substance many of us call the universe.

When it's my time for my soul to be laid to rest, I have no evidence to suggest that I'll be able to provide any evidence for you, or anyone else at that juncture and/or crossroads of my journey in God.

You were asked a question mate .. rather simiple and straight forward .. having nothing to do with the Id .. or anything else you go on about in what can only be thought of as disingenuous oblivion.

Where does the soul come from ? .. prior to entering the fleshy abode .. you said you do not believe the soul is pre-existent .. existence is not infinite .. which is fine .. but, then when how and from where does the soul .. as defined arise . Not your definition .. but any definition at all .. do you not understand the "I AM" moment ? . the relationship between the soul .. the energy and the matter. Your foundation is based on a whole lot of Nothing .. dressed up as everything ..

KK .. listen up Brother Balt .. one day.. a certain configuration of matter and energy opened up its eyes .. and realized that it existed .. and the name of this lump of flesh in which the "I AM" resided was named Balt. .. "I Think -- therefor I AM" Right ! so we are not talking abou the ID .. but talking about the capacity for thought .. and the actualization of that capacity .. Something that does not exist ~ 22 weeks ..into pregnancy.

The lump of flesh simply cannot capacitate thought - the soul - prior to the wiring of the brain being complete .. at which point ... it lights up like a xmas tree on the electro-encephalogram (sp)_ .. the lights are on .. someone is home. .. and when the xmas tree lightes go out .. the doctor pulls the plug and the dirt nap begins .. Clinical death . the lights are off .. no one home.

Now .. that thinking lump called Balt that opened up its eyes .. will exist not just this once .. but over and over .. an infinite number of times .. for ever.. and ever .. with one teeny weeny assumption .. that time is infinite .. something you have already agreed to .. and thus must agree that the existence of not just any soul . .. but your soul .. is infinite.

The reason we know this is that you are here now Brother Balt .. thus there must have been a finite propability of those molecules coming together in the certain configuration know as you. However ridiculously unlikely the odds .. the lucky number came up ..although it is not quite as random as a lottery .. but still with high odds ...

No matter how big that finite probability .. if time is infinite that event will repeat ... that configuration of matter and energy will come together in the same configuration as you .. once again .. and again and again and again .. sure you may sleep for a billion years in between .. but that will go by in the blink of an eye .. row row row the boat , gently down the stream - merrily merrily merrily merrily - Life is but a dream

but ... as stated .. that is not quite how it works .. not that it can't work that way if left to random chance .. but because it doesn't work that way because someone has the power to make it happen .. through force of will .. just like you wiggling your big toe .. through force of will .. a thought manifested into physical reality .. but anyway .. there are various Gods in charge of that .. so when you are in Heaven .. where there is a million reality TV shows . one for every world in the multiverse .. and when you find a place you like .. you go to the travel depot .. they will have you lie down .. give you the blue pill .. you will fall asleep .. and when you wake up you will be on vacation. The one rule about vacations is that you will not remember your time in heaven or past vacations. .. your soul will enter some fleshy abode (perhaps you chose to be a dragon) on some world where dragons live .. and Balt will open his eyes as a dragon .. and have a fine vacation.

Where does the soul come from ? ---- >>>>>>> X <<<<<<<

 

[1213]

If life requires a creator, then that creator would also require a creator.

Unless the creator has always existed.

Because the first one IS visible??????????
At least we know chemistry is real.

One reason why I believe the first option is correct, is by elimination of the second option. The second is eliminated by that, if it would be true and possible, we should be able to observe it happening at least in laboratory.

By what is said in the Bible, God is spirit and above physical world. Therefore it is likely not possible to examine God in the same way as physical material. Physical material we can examine, and if by doing so we can see that it has not ability to create life on its own, then the only option is the Creator, unless you can imagine a third option that is better.

 

[1213]

Though they don't recognize it, even fundamentalist creationists believe that the first life didn't come from other life. Do you consider your god the first life? If yes, then the first life didn't come from other life. If you don't call your god alive, then you believe that that nonliving entity created the first life.

I believe God is living and He created life. I also believe God has always been.

More rogue logic. Presumably, your two ways are supernaturalistically and naturalistically. This is a special pleading fallacy. You bring two sets of standards to the issue and offer no justification for it. You've never seen either of those options occur, but you reject one but not the other using that criterion for no apparent reason other than that you want to.

Do we agree that something caused life? Can you offer some other option than Creator did it, or it came spontaneously on its own?
'
I think there is only the two options. And the second can be eliminated by the observation that it never happens in nature although, if it would be possible, we should be able to see it at least in laboratory.

What's silly to me is believing in something that you say can't be detected empirically.

I think God can be detected empirically by His influence, similarly as for example gravity can be detected, although it is not visible.

 

[Balthazzar]

Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible


G-d perfectly defined here, right, please?

Third
2:256
اَللّٰہُ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ھُوَ ۚ اَلۡحَیُّ الۡقَیُّوۡمُ ۬ۚ لَا تَاۡخُذُہٗ سِنَۃٌ وَّلَا نَوۡمٌ ؕ لَہٗ مَا فِی السَّمٰوٰتِ وَمَا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ مَنۡ ذَا الَّذِیۡ یَشۡفَعُ عِنۡدَہٗۤ اِلَّا بِاِذۡنِہٖ ؕ یَعۡلَمُ مَا بَیۡنَ اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ وَمَا خَلۡفَہُمۡ ۚ وَلَا یُحِیۡطُوۡنَ بِشَیۡءٍ مِّنۡ عِلۡمِہٖۤ اِلَّا بِمَا شَآءَ ۚ وَسِعَ کُرۡسِیُّہُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالۡاَرۡضَ ۚ وَلَا یَـُٔوۡدُہٗ حِفۡظُہُمَا ۚ وَہُوَ الۡعَلِیُّ الۡعَظِیۡمُ ﴿۲۵۶
Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.

Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

In Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Urdu.

www.alislam.org

Original Arabic narration/text from Muhammad's time together with its English translation rendered by Maulawi Sher Ali, is given above ^.

Right?

Regards

You were asked a question mate .. rather simiple and straight forward .. having nothing to do with the Id .. or anything else you go on about in what can only be thought of as disingenuous oblivion.

Where does the soul come from ? .. prior to entering the fleshy abode .. you said you do not believe the soul is pre-existent .. existence is not infinite .. which is fine .. but, then when how and from where does the soul .. as defined arise . Not your definition .. but any definition at all .. do you not understand the "I AM" moment ? . the relationship between the soul .. the energy and the matter. Your foundation is based on a whole lot of Nothing .. dressed up as everything ..

KK .. listen up Brother Balt .. one day.. a certain configuration of matter and energy opened up its eyes .. and realized that it existed .. and the name of this lump of flesh in which the "I AM" resided was named Balt. .. "I Think -- therefor I AM" Right ! so we are not talking abou the ID .. but talking about the capacity for thought .. and the actualization of that capacity .. Something that does not exist ~ 22 weeks ..into pregnancy.

The lump of flesh simply cannot capacitate thought - the soul - prior to the wiring of the brain being complete .. at which point ... it lights up like a xmas tree on the electro-encephalogram (sp)_ .. the lights are on .. someone is home. .. and when the xmas tree lightes go out .. the doctor pulls the plug and the dirt nap begins .. Clinical death . the lights are off .. no one home.

Now .. that thinking lump called Balt that opened up its eyes .. will exist not just this once .. but over and over .. an infinite number of times .. for ever.. and ever .. with one teeny weeny assumption .. that time is infinite .. something you have already agreed to .. and thus must agree that the existence of not just any soul . .. but your soul .. is infinite.

The reason we know this is that you are here now Brother Balt .. thus there must have been a finite propability of those molecules coming together in the certain configuration know as you. However ridiculously unlikely the odds .. the lucky number came up ..although it is not quite as random as a lottery .. but still with high odds ...

No matter how big that finite probability .. if time is infinite that event will repeat ... that configuration of matter and energy will come together in the same configuration as you .. once again .. and again and again and again .. sure you may sleep for a billion years in between .. but that will go by in the blink of an eye .. row row row the boat , gently down the stream - merrily merrily merrily merrily - Life is but a dream

but ... as stated .. that is not quite how it works .. not that it can't work that way if left to random chance .. but because it doesn't work that way because someone has the power to make it happen .. through force of will .. just like you wiggling your big toe .. through force of will .. a thought manifested into physical reality .. but anyway .. there are various Gods in charge of that .. so when you are in Heaven .. where there is a million reality TV shows . one for every world in the multiverse .. and when you find a place you like .. you go to the travel depot .. they will have you lie down .. give you the blue pill .. you will fall asleep .. and when you wake up you will be on vacation. The one rule about vacations is that you will not remember your time in heaven or past vacations. .. your soul will enter some fleshy abode (perhaps you chose to be a dragon) on some world where dragons live .. and Balt will open his eyes as a dragon .. and have a fine vacation.

Where does the soul come from ? ---- >>>>>>> X <<<<<<<

So, it appears the id, ego, consciousness, and awareness are the premise to which you are alluding, and have been addressed over and over ad nauseum in this discussion, already. We've spoken of conception, the big bang birth of the universe, genetic travel routes, and the infinite prospect and likely hood of life being ongoing, complete with intermissions, transformational, evolutionary developments, and how God might be identified. You suggest one single point of a thing to be God, I just suggest that it's "all God".

We understand this differently and with this acknowledged, it may be most beneficial to simply agree to disagree.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe God is living

Then you believe that that first life didn't come from previous life. That was my point: even creationists, who frequently say that life never comes from non-life, believe that either their god is an example of that if they call their god living, and if they reserve that word for things that metabolize, for example, and not to pure disembodied mind, then the life it created would be life from non-life.

Can you offer some other option than Creator did it, or it came spontaneously on its own?

No, that seems exhaustive: either the first is supernatural or had a supernatural cause, or else it arose naturalistically, which is what abiogenesis is.

I think there is only the two options. And the second can be eliminated by the observation that it never happens in nature although, if it would be possible, we should be able to see it at least in laboratory.

That's already been rebutted, but you repeated it unchanged anyway. Here it is again, from post 365 of this thread:

I think God can be detected empirically by His influence, similarly as for example gravity can be detected, although it is not visible.

Empirical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience." Unlike with gravity, which we can see affecting material reality as planets orbit and apples fall, there is no apparent influence on reality caused by any god. You can't detect such a thing empirically as the definition of empirical implies.

What the believer has is faith with or without an intuition that a god exists and treats the belief like he does beliefs that DO have evidentiary support as you're doing here.

 

[Sargonski]

So, it appears the id, ego, consciousness, and awareness are the premise to which you are alluding, and have been addressed over and over ad nauseum in this discussion, already. We've spoken of conception, the big bang birth of the universe, genetic travel routes, and the infinite prospect and likely hood of life being ongoing, complete with intermissions, transformational, evolutionary developments, and how God might be identified. You suggest one single point of a thing to be God, I just suggest that it's "all God".

We understand this differently and with this acknowledged, it may be most beneficial to simply agree to disagree.

You were told - Not the Id .. upon which you you claim the premise being alluded to is the Id. .. again avoiding the the question about the soul .. which you say does not have infinite existence .. portending to know something about the subject . but failing to answer the question .. if not existing eternally .. when does the soul get created ? .. the "thinking machine" get turned on .. ?

Then another strawman fallacy - false accusation - suggesting one single point is God .. when have never stated nor inferred such a thing .. it was you that Stated this -- saying that human is God .. a part of the God substance .. so once again deception and misdirection .. down the dark path of deflection from the "bad thought" ..

Why are you having so much difficulty answering questions about the soul .. this thing you claim to know something about defacto .. such as that it is not eternal ? .. and that you will not have eternal life ... which is all fine but, when does the soul come into existence if it is not pre-existant ? conception ... twinkle in daddy's eye .. implantation of the mighty Zygote .. as the first few cells of this fleshy abode are created

Explain .. when the soul arrives .. and don't forget the "why" . .. then comment on how this belief might change your thoughts and actions. - via the cognitive dissonance created.

Told you the Holy Grail was here Brother Balt ... turn not away .. and tell us when your soul arrived ? .. if you have one that is ... don't want to be too presumptuous.

 

[firedragon]

Would you agree with the following statement?

A physical God's existence is - in principle - falsifiable, but a metaphysical God's existence is unfalsifiable.

Since your epistemology is empiricism, your statement is true ontologically. I agree. But your wording is wrong and is making a category error. In a metaphysical God question, no one with sense would even use the word unfalsifiable. They will not even go there.

A ship isn't a being like people or what God is supposed to be.

So when religious texts say that God created man in His image, does it mean something anthropomorphic, or not? Is God anthropomorphic except when it comes to genitalia?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of language. In greek, adding the masculine article "Ho" to Theos does not mean he has a penis. That's in the Bible. In Arabic The word "Allah" in Arabic is grammatically masculine, but it is not associated with human gender attributes. Arabic nouns have grammatical gender (masculine or feminine), and "Allah" follows the masculine form, but this is a matter of linguistic convention rather than implying that Allah has a gender. In Islamic theology, Allah is considered beyond human characteristics like gender, as the concept of God in Islam transcends such distinctions. God is the necessary being, and unlike anything as per the Qur'an. Yes, a common example in Arabic is the word ḥaamil, which means "pregnant." While it is grammatically feminine and usually refers to a woman, it can also be used metaphorically for a man in literary or poetic contexts, like saying someone is ḥamilu afkaar), which means "pregnant with ideas," to convey that the person is full of ideas or thoughts. Now you will turn around and say that means he also has a vagina.

This shows how grammatical gender in Arabic doesn't always align with the biological gender of the subject. There are many such cases in Arabic where feminine words are used metaphorically or poetically to describe men or abstract concepts. Same goes the other way around.

You have not understood fundamentals.

 

[paarsurrey]

In Arabic The word "Allah" in Arabic is grammatically masculine, but it is not associated with human gender attributes. Arabic nouns have grammatical gender (masculine or feminine), and "Allah" follows the masculine form, but this is a matter of linguistic convention rather than implying that Allah has a gender. In Islamic theology, Allah is considered beyond human characteristics like gender, as the concept of God in Islam transcends such distinctions. God is the necessary being, and unlike anything as per the Qur'an.

Excellent contribution, congratulations.

Regards

 

[firedragon]

Excellent contribution, congratulations.

Regards

Thank you brother.

 

[Sargonski]

I believe God is living and He created life. I also believe God has always been.

Do we agree that something caused life? Can you offer some other option than Creator did it, or it came spontaneously on its own?
'
I think there is only the two options. And the second can be eliminated by the observation that it never happens in nature although, if it would be possible, we should be able to see it at least in laboratory.

I think God can be detected empirically by His influence, similarly as for example gravity can be detected, although it is not visible.

1) we do see it in the laboratory .. even though there is no reason why we should be able to via some elimination fallacy (false logic)
2) of course we observe the creation of life in nature .. and this is not a two possibility reality to begin with .. you could have conditions that existed in the primordial ooze .. that no longer exist today ...but regardless .. tell me where viruses come from ? .. I start here because there is debate over whether or not a virus can be called "Alive" .. what about one step down to plasmids ? can we claim a plasmid is alive .. and how far off is this from something we have seen in a lab.
3) I believe God can be detected empirically as well ! -- especially when defined as one of the forces of Nature .. as you have defined - The Sun being a prime example without which there would be no life .. we can look to the Sun as the creative force for all life. We have evidence for not just one but many Gods all of which can be detected empirically

My definition of God is different than yours .. so the evidence for detection is different whether or not God can be detected is wholely dependent on how this God is defined ..

 

[stvdv]

For God's existence to be accepted scientifically or logically, first you would have to come up with a means to test for God's absence.

Whatever claims you make about God, you would need to come up with a method to test whether the opposite is not true. Evidence for God is not enough. You'd also need to provide evidence that a God's absence in the universe is not possible.

So generally you are going about it the wrong way if you are trying to provide evidence for God. What you'd need to do is provide evidence that the opposite of God's existence, the absence of a God is not true.

IOW, in your daily life, what would it be impossible for you to do or impossible to happen if there was no God.

Remember, you can't just make a claim. You also have to provide evidence to back up your claim that the absence of a God is not possible.

A good start to get your answer about God is:
"Who Am I?"
or
"To Be, or Not To Be"

 

[firedragon]

of course we observe the creation of life in nature

No one has ever witnessed anything of the sort, unless you are speaking about birth of a creature.

Replicating the so called initial conditions does not mean observing abiogenesis or biogenesis.

 

[Sargonski]

No one has ever witnessed anything of the sort, unless you are speaking about birth of a creature.

Replicating the so called initial conditions does not mean observing abiogenesis or biogenesis.

Depends how you define "life" .. and in this context ... we are talking early proto-life .. not a bug walking out of a lab .. or even a virus .. on which we debate if this is life. what is being discussed is the the most basic form life .. which is what ?

You say no one has witnessed anything of the sort .. anything of what sort ? .. what is it that we have not witnessed ? do you know what a Plasmid is ? .. surely we have witnessed Plasmids .. is this not what we would look at as an early form of life ? or at least a major step on the path .. .. have a look a "prions" as well .. and then come up with what you are claiming no one has ever witnessed .. less than plasmids .

Who said replicating original conditions meant observing abiogenesis ? that makes absolutely no sense

 

[firedragon]

Depends how you define "life" .. and in this context ... we are talking early proto-life .. not a bug walking out of a lab .. or even a virus .. on which we debate if this is life. what is being discussed is the the most basic form life .. which is what ?

Again, no one ever observed it taking place. Bottomline.

 

[Sargonski]

Again, no one ever observed it taking place. Bottomline.

No one observed what taking place ? Plasmids exist in nature -they are a primative form of life .. what is it you thought we were supposed to be observing ..

 

[firedragon]

No one observed what taking place ? Plasmids exist in nature -they are a primative form of life .. what is it you thought we were supposed to be observing ..

What we need to observe isn't the process in real time but the mechanisms and evidence that show how plasmids behave. Plasmids are well-studied DNA molecules, not primitive life forms. While they exist in nature, they're not living organisms themselves. They facilitate gene transfer in bacteria, which has been confirmed through numerous experiments and evidence. Plasmids are not an example of the emergence of life. They are simply DNA molecules that exist within living cells, particularly bacteria, and can replicate independently of chromosomal DNA. They help transfer genetic material, but they are not alive themselves and don’t represent the beginning of life. The study of plasmids provides insight into genetic mechanisms, but it’s not equivalent to witnessing the emergence of life. This is a red herring.

 

[Sargonski]

What we need to observe isn't the process in real time but the mechanisms and evidence that show how plasmids behave. Plasmids are well-studied DNA molecules, not primitive life forms. While they exist in nature, they're not living organisms themselves. They facilitate gene transfer in bacteria, which has been confirmed through numerous experiments and evidence. Plasmids are not an example of the emergence of life. They are simply DNA molecules that exist within living cells, particularly bacteria, and can replicate independently of chromosomal DNA. They help transfer genetic material, but they are not alive themselves and don’t represent the beginning of life. The study of plasmids provides insight into genetic mechanisms, but it’s not equivalent to witnessing the emergence of life. This is a red herring.

Plasmids are primative life forms .. your claim that they are not and posting a googled definition of Plasmid .. which does not support your claim but refutes your claim .. is somewhat priceless .. and wrong "Simple DNA Molecules" / "Nucleic Acids" are "self replicating molecules" as per your definition .. like the proto RNA that "walked out of the Lab"

What a joke ... you need a bacteria to walk out of a lab ? Sorry FD --- what we want is a self replicating molecule to walk out of the lab .. that is our definition of primative life .. not a fully formed Ant .. dorp !?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unless the creator has always existed.

Ow look, special pleading. How (un)surprising...

One reason why I believe the first option is correct, is by elimination of the second option. The second is eliminated by that, if it would be true and possible, we should be able to observe it happening at least in laboratory.

By that reasoning, 500 years ago demons were the cause of disease.
You are making a humongous argument from ignorance.
And, off course, the exact same fallacious logic would also rule out option 1.

But as we have seen above, you have "special" rules for option 1. Special pleading again.

By what is said in the Bible, God is spirit and above physical world. Therefore it is likely not possible to examine God in the same way as physical material. Physical material we can examine, and if by doing so we can see that it has not ability to create life on its own, then the only option is the Creator, unless you can imagine a third option that is better.

Not understanding a certain process yet doesn't mean said process can't occur.
And there is, off course, no particular reason at all to consider the bible to hold any truth about this.

 

[1213]

1) we do see it in the laboratory

Can you give a link to source of that information?

tell me where viruses come from ?

Can you first show that viruses exist?

 

[1213]

Empirical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience." Unlike with gravity, which we can see affecting material reality as planets orbit and apples fall, there is no apparent influence on reality caused by any god. You can't detect such a thing empirically as the definition of empirical implies.

I think for example the existence of the Bible and also that Jews have survived all the persecution they get, is evidence for God and sign of His influence.