Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
I
If so, it's kinda silly. How can the sum of reality be less than a part?
-
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!
Looking for arguments for the existence of God
- Thread starter Rorschach
- Start date
Don't quite know what you are talking about.... But again I am only assuming what he is asking and what I assume he is asking for is concrete verifiable evidence for personal god, i.e. a god who watched over everyone at all times.
Jbird, do you understand the what evidence is??? Nothing you have said so far is evidence.
One more thing, because we do not know where fundamental laws come from does not mean God made them, the only thing it means is we do not know where they came from. This is one of the most basic religious arguing points that always fails. I repeat, because we do not know something does not mean God made that something we do not know.
One more thing, because we do not know where fundamental laws come from does not mean God made them, the only thing it means is we do not know where they came from. This is one of the most basic religious arguing points that always fails. I repeat, because we do not know something does not mean God made that something we do not know.
Rioku...
I think you have a misconception about what a debate is. You see, a debate is useful because an exchange of ideas and viewpoints can lead to a more informed reader. This doesn't happen when one side of the "debate" merely says that the other guy is full of crap and offers no explanation.
Even if you do not consider any of those as proofs, there at least needs to be some consideration here. I don't think the intention was that any of those "prove" the existence of a higher being, but only that, taken together, they provide some amount of corroborating evidence.
I think you have a misconception about what a debate is. You see, a debate is useful because an exchange of ideas and viewpoints can lead to a more informed reader. This doesn't happen when one side of the "debate" merely says that the other guy is full of crap and offers no explanation.
Even if you do not consider any of those as proofs, there at least needs to be some consideration here. I don't think the intention was that any of those "prove" the existence of a higher being, but only that, taken together, they provide some amount of corroborating evidence.
It is hard to have a debate when no one is providing verifiable evidence. I see where you are coming from and in a sophomoric sense it can be seen as a valid point and I would even accept it as credible if there was verifiable ideas presented. But so far no one has presented anything substantial, except for someone started defining god. The main point of this thread is to provide evidence for the existence of god. Not just claims and verses from the bible. At the very least someone could have at least said the bible is evidence for the existence of god. Which is "correct" in a much larger collection of evidence, however standing alone as it does means it has minimal to no influence at all.
Rioku wrote:There is no proof for the existence for god in any of those. The only thing there is a definition of God. I can only assume that Rorschach is looking for evidence for a personal god.
I disagree, let look at 5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.
We can say that everything that we see in our environment have a purpose and that they are the cause of some effect, so we can say that this is evidence of a goal, a final target, and that we see that it been directed by a an all-powerful force9God), the evidence is in that we can study and perhaps understand it, see that it must have a designer and director that has all the power, evidenced by the fact that we can know things that are a round us and how they work but cannot change their course.
And this one I dont know
I disagree, let look at 5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.
We can say that everything that we see in our environment have a purpose and that they are the cause of some effect, so we can say that this is evidence of a goal, a final target, and that we see that it been directed by a an all-powerful force9God), the evidence is in that we can study and perhaps understand it, see that it must have a designer and director that has all the power, evidenced by the fact that we can know things that are a round us and how they work but cannot change their course.
And this one I dont know
I wish Roschach would tell us, it would be interesting.
You can, but why? Gravity is a characteristic of nature. To suggest the the falling raindrop is operating purposefully is anthropomorphic delusion. To then argue that this purposeful raindrop is evidence of supernatural agency is ludicrous.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
That is an ignorant statement based on your lack of understanding of Scripture.
McBell
Unbound
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I don't think there are any good arguments for (or against, for that matter) the existence of God. I haven't heard any, anyway. It's my extremely personal opinion that the only valid reason for belief is personal experience. If you haven't had such an experience, there's nothing I can say to make you believe.
However, I'm more than happy to talk with you about what I believe and why.
Actually, I assume that I'm mostly wrong. I believe the true nature of reality/ God is incomprehensible to the human mind. We're ALL wrong. My religion (if you want to call it that) is simply my best guess at the moment.
It makes the most sense to me.
Sorry for plagiarism. I didn't realize that I couldn't put URLs on here till I have a certain number of posts. Next time I'll either summarize or something. I'd lke to continue on with the discussion but I'm doing some reading up to try and make some decent points for you agnostics. If you don't mind me asking, if God doesn't exist and Evolution contradicts itself...what do people believe in? Where do you go when you die? What is your reason for not believing in God?
I will not debate the ignorance of the statement for there exists a level of it in the statement I made. If I was to make it again I would have stated it differently. On the other hand it has nothing to do with my understanding of the scripture, because it is just another book, even if it is the best selling book of all time.
Proof?
Into the ground. ( remember the only thing atheists have in common is they do not believe in God) Most atheists that I know do not believe in a spirit that posses the body so there is no where to "go" after death.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:biglaugh:
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
That deeper meaning in literature echoes the human experience in ways that only art can.
If "God" is merely an archetypal character, then It is none the less powerful.
