• 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!

INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

F

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
Thief said:
God would be the only one not born.....that doesn't mean he would remain alone.
and the Garden was used for the scenario of Chapter Two.
After the manipulation the garden was no longer needed.
Click to expand...

So "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Was not the actual cause of being dispelled from the Garden.

So God was in the Universe, got Bored and decided to create more people to hang with God, and then together they all worked to create man kind and make them make mankind into their image, and then when mankind ate of the fruit and became like them knowing Good and Evil, they had to stop mankind from eating from the tree of life and becoming immortal too?

So God fears immortal beings who have free will?
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
FranklinMichaelV.3 said:
So "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Was not the actual cause of being dispelled from the Garden.

So God was in the Universe, got Bored and decided to create more people to hang with God, and then together they all worked to create man kind and make them make mankind into their image, and then when mankind ate of the fruit and became like them knowing Good and Evil, they had to stop mankind from eating from the tree of life and becoming immortal too?

So God fears immortal beings who have free will?
Click to expand...

Wrong imposition and motivation.
The body produces a unique soul on each occasion.

Peace in heaven is guarded.
Not all enter.
Immortality for all?....I think not.
 
C

cottage

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
Holy Heck this is a lot of stuff. If I reply to all of this and you disappear then may a toothless yack gum your grandmothers wheat thins!!!!
Click to expand...

I’m here! I’m here! Send the toothless yack away! <cottage hides under desk>

1robin said:
I went back and looked. It seems your questions is what is God's reason for making the universe or Earth. If so it was to facilitate beings that can freely choose to love him or reject him. Once that purpose is understood then everything flows from it. If that was not the question then what your asking escapes me. If so where does the contradiction lie?
Click to expand...

So an All-Sufficient Being creates creatures to love him! Can you not see the contradiction there? What happened? Did God get lonely, tired and emotional, yearning for affection? Very simply, there can only be two reasons for his creating the world, as a benefit for himself or to benefit others. But since there were no “others” prior to their creation they didn’t exist to receive anything beneficial to them! The whole creation thing is absurdly all about God’s needs and not those of his subjects. So, of the two possible reasons for his creating the world both involve a contradiction. We can safely conclude from this that if the world was created by an external agent it wouldn’t have been an all-sufficient, Supreme Being, much less the Biblical God.



1robin said:
This presents no logical absurdities or lack.
Click to expand...
Not until we begin trying to put flesh on the bones, metaphorically speaking, and then they immediately become evident. If you look back I have given three examples where your Creator is dependent upon his creation.

1robin said:
This one lacks any reason to adopt it.
Click to expand...
But then so does yours!


1robin said:
Causation is no like E=mc^2 or any other natural law. It is a philosophical or abstract concept that has no dependence on the natural world. They just are (brute facts of reason) and there is no reason to think they cease to exist if nature did.
Click to expand...
Causation, or causality if you prefer, is surely the essence of the natural world. Movement and change and their relation to one another are what define the natural world. And your last sentence makes no sense at all, for firstly we can only know of causation because of the existence of the world, and secondly as it is demonstrably contingent it cannot be necessary.



1robin said:
( Nature is constrained by a contingent principle, necessary beings are not.
Click to expand...
Cause and effect is a contingent principle. Self-evidently your necessary being cannot itself be contingent upon such a principle; therefore there is no external necessary being.

1robin said:
1. Yes we do know for a fact that stuff exists.
Click to expand...
Well that’s a start.


1robin said:
2. We know it must either be eternal or began to exist a finite time ago. All evidence suggest it began to exist.
Click to expand...


I don’t know what this “all evidence” is that you keep referring to? Now I’m no scientist but as far as I’m aware there is only the Big Bang that supposes a beginning?
Now if the universe sprang into being in a complete form, as we’re led to believe in Genesis, it might be difficult to avoid some kind of supernatural explanation. But the Big Bang theory is to date the most significant element in the evolution of the world, the beginning of what we have now, and it began as physical phenomena, its expansion and continuous development evidently a physical process according to the laws of physics, which belong to form and to matter; therefore to argue that a transcendent entity brought the universe into being is to argue, incoherently in my view, that the ‘transcendent entity’ would be dependent upon the force and energy of physical phenomena that we see in the universe. And if that argument is pursued then the principle of an unseen physical cause can also be allowed without invoking a supernatural deity. For the argument that we don’t see a ‘before’, which is not disputed here, must apply in all cases and cannot be used to argue to an unseen supernatural cause (which proposes to use phenomena found in the universe) while denying the possibility of a yet to be discovered natural cause – or no cause at all! In fact, as it cannot be proved to the contrary, all instances of cause and effect are associated with physical phenomena and the natural world, an argument that makes an external agent answerable to the same difficulties that its advocates lay before their opponents, and more besides when they attempt to mount up from the basic concept to add anthropomorphic qualities to an already doubtful premise.



1robin said:
3. Nature never has, never will, and does not even have the theoretical potential to self create.
Click to expand...


That has to be a herring with a redness of the most blinding luminance! The very idea of self-creation is an evident absurdity and I can’t imagine what you think you are saying by it!



1robin said:
4. Nothing has no causal potential and that is why every single scientists that claims nothing produced anything has to turn nothing into some
Click to expand...
This is still the same colourful fish as above, and it is clear that you are confusing two things. Nothing cannot produce or cause something, but something can appear or exist where before there was nothing. The former is self-evidently absurd, but the latter simply rejects cause as a necessary principle, which is to say it is logically possible for something to exist uncaused.




1robin said:
It is no indictment to suppose a creation has a creator. It is not complicated. Put everything that constitutes nature in a set. Natural law, time, space, matter, etc. Now is the evidence better that everything in that set began to exist or is the evidence better that any subset is infinite. That is it, it is not complex, it does not require $100 semantic labels, it does not require a hundred page dissertation. All the evidence we have suggest the set and everything in it began to exist. If it did not exist it could not create it's self by any known or reliable theoretical process.
Click to expand...


I’m sorry but I can’t see an argument in there, and it still bright red and very fishy with regard to the last sentence.
 
F

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
Thief said:
Wrong imposition and motivation.
The body produces a unique soul on each occasion.

Peace in heaven is guarded.
Not all enter.
Immortality for all?....I think not.
Click to expand...


Oh?

Are you sure?

It was immortality for Adam and Eve not all.

Peace in Heaven is guarded? Against what? It was immortality on earth not heaven.

So you do not believe they were cast out of the garden because they had become like God, knowing Good and Evil. If the knowing of Good and Evil is the reason for heaven to be guarded then why is God there?
 
F

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
ladybug77 said:
Its suppose to be: 'Namaste'. Im typing on a cellphone...may you excuse the error please? And may you please not be sarcastic?

For a religious forum...its surprising how many people are so quick to post a put-down.
Click to expand...

Oi deary

Be not hurt, tis but only the internet :D

I'm sure he did so only in Jest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top