Try to do a better job following the discussion ...
-
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!
No proof of god.
- Thread starter Egyptianboxer104
- Start date
Learn the difference between argument and premise ...
If everything natual had a beginning, and if everything has a cause, then... the cause of the first natural thing must have been non-natural.
It's logically sound. That the non-natural thing is "God" is open to interpretation. That the non-natural thing must be "God" is the distortion.
LOL. Intuitive enough to discern my meaning but not not above ignoring the content and poking with an insulting jibe. The equivalent of pointing out a spelling mistake to further discredit the meaning of the material. :areyoucra
Greetings Egyptianboxer. Permit me to offer a different approach to finding 'proof of God' and why some believe that God is. God can be proven to oneself through personal experience. How is this done? - by following the guidance and perennial knowledge from the religion founders to look within. Check these out taken from "Essential Spirituality" and posted in another thread ( http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...y-do-you-believe-god-exists-8.html#post701105 ):
- The kingdom of heaven is within you. (Jesus, Christianity)
- Those who know themselves know their Lord. (Mohammad, Islam)
- He is in all, and all is in Him. (Judaism)
- Those who know completely their own nature, know heaven. (Mencius, Confucianism)
- In the depths of the soul, one sees the Divine, the One. (The Chinese Book of Changes)
- Atman [individual consciousness] and Brahman [universal consciousness] are one. (Hinduism)
- Look within, you are the Buddha. (Buddhism)
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Trust me when I say that Jay speaks volumes with his short barbs. I always try to use his sharp comments to better understand what I am babbling about. Uncomfortably, for the most part, Jay usually hits a bull's eye. Try to appreciate his comments as acts of great kindness. He is actually doing you a favor. Just remember, as Patty insists, it is not about you, regardless how close to the bone he cuts.
In regards to the OP:
When I think of a reasonable answer that can be squished into the confines of the question, I'll let ya know.
Last edited:
Worshipper
Active Member
Not quite. You take the suggestion and then you look to see if there is evidence. There's a difference. If you go out to find evidence of something, then you have already made up your mind and you run a very high risk of deceiving yourself. Instead, you look to see whether the evidence that might be there actually is.
You look for this evidence until one of three things happens: either you find sufficient evidence and then become a theist; you examine all possibilities thoroughly and prove that there is no evidence become a knowledge-based atheist; or you decide that you're tired of looking for evidence and then become either agnostic or, if you prefer, a faith-based atheist. I have never heard of anybody reaching the second of these outcomes; I have heard of very many people reaching the first and third.
I'm not really sure how any of this follows. These are examples of people believing because many others believe. But I already said that's not what I'm talking about.Spanish Inquisition, crusades and the earth is flat are examples where the masses essentially acted on what they thought to be so. (And some say the 2000 and 2004 american presidential elections...
Do you see the difference I'm drawing between believing that someone might be right and believing that someone is right? Do you not think it's a meaningful difference?
That's absolutely right. There's no need to consider what others believe to accept the possibility that there's a god.
But when more people believe something, there's more cause to investigate. If one person in a town of a thousand says he saw a flying saucer, it's pretty easy to ignore him. If four hundred of the people in the town say they saw a flying saucer, it makes you more inclined to investigate the issue and determine what happened. That's the point of mentioning that billions believe there's a god. It's harder to honestly dismiss a lot of witnesses than it is to dismiss one.
Of course, if one is already committed to the conclusion that there is no god, then it doesn't matter if everyone else in the world claims to know there's a god he won't consider the possibility anyway because his mind is made up as surely and blindly as if he believed in God just because others do.
That "everything does have a natural beginning" is not an argument, but a premise! Why do you make me defend Jay so? (I know, it's a failing of me, not a premise you.)
And B follows A and comes before C.
I think its obvious what I meant. Whether it should be "Premise" or "Argument" I will leave to the english majors as I feel either work and get my point across.
I think it would have been more acceptable to ADD to the discussion then to pick on my grammar. Some of us post here as a hobby and for enjoyment and I'm not submitting my thoughts for a grade in english 101 but to a forum for consideration and discussion. Cheers.
I think it's obvious that you haven't a clue what you meant, but let's see ...
So, as we see, you argue:
IF
So, either, we accept the premise that everything [natural] has a beginning
THENGod [a presumably preternatural agency] would need a beginning as well
- you do not understand or intentionally distort the argument's premise, i.e., that the natural order had a beginning and that causation is an attribute of nature, or
- you've argued a truly stupid non sequitur, i.e., that what applies to the natural must necessarily apply to the preternatural.
The distinction between premise and argument is not a grammatical one and no one is "picking on your grammar." We are "picking on" the embarrassingly sloppy thinking that characterizes your adolescent rants against theism.
Much clearer. So here you are defining god as something outside of or beyond nature, a common definition. You want to call god preternatural or supernatural. I have no supernatural belief. I do not believe in the supernatural and think arguing about things that are completely beyond us or our ability to understand is a waste of time. (I also do not believe in the paranormal...)
Whether you think god is a superpowered being or an awesome force of immeasurable power that is beyond us doesnt matter. If its preternatural then it doesn't matter at all... Your basically, by defining god as such, saying... Who knows, giving up and walking around screaming but hes beyond us. Its outside of nature and beyond comprehension.
Thats my point.
You call it a sloppy, but you are just being lazy and trying to rib or antagonize me. The point as I said I am parroting from Dawkins and Hitchens and is not my adolescent rant. Nothing so far as I know is supernatural and assigning something as such is just throwing up you hands and giving up.
Now people are going to debate and discuss things with you in a naturally hurried and irrational manner because you constantly berate and insult them as you reply. You toss ad homs consistently and repeat them over and over.
A few people have come to your defense and say that deep down your benevolent and only trying to help but I definitely would not characterize you in that manner. You argue from authority of which you are not one and and belittle others around you. Superiority complex perhaps but regardless it comes across as uncaring and creul. I'm not certain you can post without working some type of snide disrespect into your posts while demanding all to respect you.
There is no argument for or against god when you define god as something completely beyond us. There was a context to this thread and one you have reached outside of in an attempt to berate and belittle me.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
I think what's being said BF is that countering the argument "If the universe had a beginning, then something must have created it, that something is God" that some theists use with the counter-argument "Then what created God?" is flawed because in their (theists) beliefs God wouldn't need a creator or necessarily have a beginning.
It's not logical, it doesn't make any sense why they should believe a universe could not spontaneously pop into existence whilst simultaneously believing in a conscious, thinking super-being that has always existed. But its just something you have to accept - you can't rationally argue against an essentially irrational position.
What is "much clearer" is the absurdity of your argument. That you would dismiss theists as illogical or irrational is the height of irony ...
One particular argument Jay as outlined above. Try not to generalize.
That you acknowledge the absurdity of your argument is progress. Now try not to rise to the generalization ...
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
I think Jay already told you...
Stop embarrasing yourself... That sounds stupid just as your claim, i put it to you, prove there is no god.
Minister_E
Member
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard