-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?
- Thread starter chinu
- Start date
chinu
chinu
Evidence you asked for. Isn’t it is ?
chinu
chinu
Confused?
Yes. Imagination is speculation not tied to truth. Thinking starts when you narrow down to those things that have evidence and truth to them.
But I do control my imagination: I can, for example, imagine a purple cow. That doesn't mean that purple cows actually exist. I can imagine a unicorn and even give such a creature and name. That doesn't mean that unicorns actually exist.
The same thing happens with the word 'God'. People imagine all-powerful beings and give such names. That doesn't mean all-powerful beings actually exist.
To even talk about time requires the operation of physical laws.
There was a type of 'change of state', in fact multiple changes, a finite time into the current expansion, but I am not aware of the actual laws changing.
No. You didn't give any evidence in the OP.
You asked a question about whether atheists hope for such evidence, but gave none yourself.
chinu
chinu
I need some time to think and reply. How much time can I take ?
Are you?
Well, because you call it that. Some even call it G-d, believing that "o" offends Him, somehow.But, why do you call God as God ? why NOT any other name ?
I can call it Mickey Mouse, if you prefer. It would still have the same ontological status in my mind.
Your call.
Ciao
- viole
As far as i understand the laws of this universe coalesced between 10e-42 and 10e-23 of a second after the bb. This universe created its laws.
chinu
chinu
Don’t worry, I have a very good answer for this.
That is the period between about a Planck time and the first phase transition. But, time itself is governed by the laws of physics and the phase transition at 10^-23 seconds is also governed by the physical laws. In essence, there is a symmetry breaking that starts to distinguish gravity from the other three forces.
No restrictions. Think as long as you wish. I'll wait for an answer....
Is time governed by the laws of physics though?
The laws that apply to this universe were created by this universe. It is hypothesized there may be trillions of other universes, each with different laws of physics, many we could not even recognise as universes, yet alone comprehend the laws that govern them
As someone once said (Neil Turok i think) time may be a logical contradiction.
PureX
Veteran Member
We have no evidence of this. In fact, we have no idea how the "laws" that govern the behavior of energy that then becomes our universe, originate. But they did not originate within the universe that they then define. That's not logically possible. The parameters must exist, first, before they can be fulfilled.
PureX
Veteran Member
The point at which they began to manifest, physically, does not logically lead us to the presumption that they self-originated
leroy
Well-Known Member
And what kind of evidence would you accept as evidence for God, that couldn’t be dismissed by “OHHHH that’s just a God of the Gaps argument”……….
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I've gone as far as I can go with God arguments. There is no evidence for one though.
Who wouldn't want an answer to all existential sufferings and dreads. I'm a pro God atheist. It don't add up to anything though! That's a frustrating pursuit actually.
I fall short of belief. Though something far less made us.
Who wouldn't want an answer to all existential sufferings and dreads. I'm a pro God atheist. It don't add up to anything though! That's a frustrating pursuit actually.
I fall short of belief. Though something far less made us.
PureX
Veteran Member
The really big problem here is that people insist on confusing and wrongly conflating evidence with proof. There is plenty of evidence, but there is no proof. Because what evidence there is, is subjective evidence, and "proof" is likewise a subjective determination. And on top of this, materialists (most atheists are materialists) will not even consider subjective evidence, evidence. So for them, there is "no evidence", even though there is actually plenty of subjective evidence. And there can be no "proof", because they have already determined that to be so.
So the debate just goes around and around in a pointless circle unless and until the debaters clarify and agree on what constitutes "evidence", and what determines potential "proof". Unfortunately this almost never happens.