The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Shifting the burden of proof. Those proclaiming God's existence are the ones making the extraordinary claims; they need to provide supporting evidence.
-
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!
Is God impossible?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
Shifting the burden of proof. Those proclaiming God's existence are the ones making the extraordinary claims; they need to provide supporting evidence.
For now, I'm only saying that the question "is God impossible?" should be answered with "maybe" until we have something either way. IOW, the statement "God might be impossible" needs no support.
If we're careful not to equivocate, it works just as well in the other direction, too:
- is God impossible? Maybe.
- is God possible? Maybe.
interminable
منتظر
And people like u that see all these phenomena and deny the existence of God are very weird too.
Actually we don't need to.
If u doubt about an inventor of a car u can doubt the existence of a creator.
interminable
منتظر
If u doubt about the designer of a car u can doubt about god too.
Interesting aside, a subjective mind needs an object to study and objective mind needs a subject to study. the eyes are never full.
Last edited:
If the existence of God is obvious, you should have no problem demonstrating it. Please go ahead.
interminable
منتظر
Can u show me u are a wise and sane person??
Can u show me dark matter?
Can u show me gravity waves????
Science is based upon causality.
Take the causality from it and what do we have????
So...
- some true things are hard to demonstrate.
- therefore, the thing you can't demonstrate is also true.
BTW: a minute ago, you were going on about how obvious it was that God exists and how "weird" atheists are for not seeing it. Now it seems like you're arguing that God is hard to prove, like dark matter or someone else's subjective experience. Which is it?
I'm not sure what you're on about, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with establishing that God exists.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
You choose to stand by your prejudice and that does not surprise me. I also conclude that you have no righteous claim to the throne of Denmark after all.
Have a good day, sir.
Last edited:
Blastcat
Active Member
This is a language problem, not a theological one or a logical one.
AS soon as we say that something is POSSIBLE, it implies that it's also possible that it's not possible. The word "possible" hides a conditional state. Maybe is another word like that.. it means "Yes or no"
Even the wildest hypotheses are in that sense "possible".
The question that I think is more appropriate here is:
" What is the PROBABILITY that the proposition "God exists." is true?"
Crypto2015
Active Member
God's existence is not only possible, but actually required in order to explain some of the properties of our universe. For instance, the natural laws that dictate the way in which the universe behaves are completely rational and can even be described using mathematics. It could even be said that the universe has been written in the language of mathematics. Now, how could this set of rational natural laws have arisen from chaos? In order for such a set of laws to exist, the universe must have had a creator. This is just one of the reasons why the existence of God, far from being impossible, is actually necessary to explain the way in which our universe works.
interminable
منتظر
The true result of my statement is if u can't see or hear something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.
God is immaterial. So nobody can see him by material things.
What I tried to say is that every creature is a masterpiece of an intelligent designer so why just we ignore this fact???
Why not material??
Simply because every matter is combined from its parts so for example if u consider a cellphone it wasn't cellphone at the beginning. By combining its parts we call it cellphone. Therefore every matter needs to its parts to be existed which means there is a time when this material didn't exist. And there is no time that God wasn't. Because first cause (god) he himself is a creator of time.
By causality we can prove the existence of first cause that created everything.
interminable
منتظر
The true result of my statement is if u can't see or hear something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.
God is immaterial. So nobody can see him by material things.
What I tried to say is that every creature is a masterpiece of an intelligent designer so why just we ignore this fact???
Why not material??
Simply because every matter is combined from its parts so for example if u consider a cellphone it wasn't cellphone at the beginning. By combining its parts we call it cellphone. Therefore every matter needs to its parts to be existed which means there is a time when this material didn't exist. And there is no time that God wasn't. Because first cause (god) he himself is a creator of time.
By causality we can prove the existence of first cause that created everything.
Yes, but lots of things that don't exist can't be seen or heard either. You still need some sort of evidence.
It isn't a fact; it's an empty claim. Why should I accept it?
the no-hiding thereom says that consciousnes, or intelligence, cannot be created or destroyed.
http://phys.org/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html
Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction
Why? If he had something you'd just fail to address it, like moving on from my argument with little more than a few clips!
You aren't entitled to my time or effort. I give your posts the attention I feel they they warrant. If I thought I could learn something from you, you would get more of my time.
I think you're misrepresenting the science.
I also think that you have a failure of logic if you think that your premise implies that consciousness was created by a god.
over thinking is a possiblity too, or over analyizing. we don't look at forms even in western science. we look at actions.
“I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their actions, according to what their actions deserve.”
the science states that consciousness isn't impermanent; it's form is. atennae captures electrical impulses and transmit it. it doesn't create it, or destroy it, it simply directs the conductivity of it.
spooky action at a distance doesn't misrepresent
'Spooky Action at a Distance' Confirmed by New Quantum Experiment
Spooky Action Is Real: Bizarre Quantum Entanglement Confirmed in New Tests
Last edited: