Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[AK4]

You did not prove anything.
Who are you trying to convince with the above nonsense, me or yourself?


If we go with your logic then God had to have a creator.
Who or what crated god?

You are real good at not answering direct questions.


Apparently you are not going to answer with anything other than non-sense.

How can you possibly think or conceive that there can be something before the thing that started everything? This makes no sense in any thing, philosophy, science or just plain common sense. Can you answer this directly? Have i answered this? Yes. Again its not possible, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a notion. Science can only keep breaking down things until it reaches a point where there is nothing more to find out. Philosophy says the same thing yet you have yet to show otherwise

 

[AK4]

We do not know the world is not self-existent. To demonstrate that we would need to show an external creative and sustaining power. No such thing is evident.

Your are only looking at it from one viewpoint. Now another way to deduce that the universe is not self-existent is the fact that we know it has a beginning. This demonstrates a need for something external.

Analytic or necessary truths are true because they cannot be false. ‘Gasoline is highly flammable’ and ‘humans can’t exist without oxygen’ are only contingently true statements, but ‘God cannot not be God’ is necessarily true just as a triangle has four sides is necessarily false. ‘God cannot not be God’ is necessarily true and ‘God is the omnipotent being’ is analytically true. We cannot conceive of God to be sometimes not God or lacking in power without uttering a self-contradiction, but there is nothing contradictory is conceiving of an object remaining stationary when struck, regardless of the power applied to it, or water bursting into flames. God cannot by definition be dependent upon any feature found in the material world. You could annihilate all the laws of nature and every scientific principle and God the Creator would not be in the least affected – with the sole exception of the law of causation! Annihilate causation and God is no longer the Creator, which means ‘God is not God’ is true! Traditionally the Problem of Evil has been the only argument that demonstrates that God, as he is understood by the three main religions, to be impossible. But now we can identify that God can be not God without self-contradiction, because if cause isn’t necessary, then neither is God!

The only feasible way God can be part of the causality is that if He never created anything then there would be nothing to know that He exist therefore Him creating caused Him to exist also or better stated, it magnified His existence. Since He already existed, Him creating didn’t make Him exist for the first time but what it did was magnify His existence


Descartes reasoned from his own imperfections that perfection itself must lie outside of his being, and that God doesn’t deceive those whose faith is sound; hence a perfectly good God exists (which in turn underwrites the truth that whatever he clearly and distinctly perceives is true because a perfectly good God wouldn’t deceive him). But I agree that the Biblical God is bloodthirsty, racist, threatening and vindictive, and that the quotation from Isaiah confirms this.

I wouldn’t say Hes all that. If you know His plan, you would see like in an analogy of a CEO who has a specific plan for a certain product that it must be made a certain way, no exceptions, then you should be able to see how God is also doing this for His most prized “product” that He is making. Hence He has the plan of making man into His image and the blueprint of doing this must be followed to “T”.


I respectfully disagree. A thing can be said to have had a beginning when it is observed to begin, but we can’t argue that the physical world began at point x because that’s saying the physical world observed its own beginning. And science isn’t an argument for science in the same way that logic cannot be used to argue for logic. But this thread isn’t a discussion about cosmology; it is about the existence of God, a supposed supernatural being. And the matter can only be settled ontologically. It is impossible to argue from the experiential world to some supposed world beyond experience. Prove God, not by speculative inferential arguments from the material world or by circular reasoning, but by logic: show how God, the Almighty creator of all existent things, the explanation for reality itself, cannot logically fail to exist?

So wouldn’t this be asking to prove Him by philosophy, logical critical thinking? This has been done. Okay lets just say the universe is eternal, self-existent. Wouldn’t this say then that universe is god then and everything is inside this god, this god then would also be personal because it is working in all of the things that are in it. This would explain reality and in our reality anything created inside this universe cannot be destroyed. So we exist, this is reality. We cant be destroyed but only changed. This should also show that we cannot fail exist which would further the universe [and since we are saying the universe is eternal here and is god] to not fail to exist. So in this, the universe or god cannot fail to exist.
But even in this we know that inside of this universe we/you/me had a beginning and that before we were born we technically didn’t exist [unless you believe in reincarnation]. There are things that preceded our beginning that made us. You can say the same thing for an “eternal” universe. In order for an eternal universe to even became known as a universe it would have to gather together all the individual things that is in the universe to a single point, sparking its true beginning. But see all those things preceded this universe/god and made this universe/god come into existence, so this universe/god cannot by definition be eternal or termed the one true god. That says there is something before this universe/god.

That our will is subject to the nature and demands of the universe is undeniable. And there is no argument (that I’m aware of) that shows this not to be the case, or that there are further demands imposed on us by some other supposed external thing.

So you agree?


But of course God would need a reason for creating the world, in this case his son. We don’t want things for which we have no need (although in the case of humans we might find afterwards that don’t really need them). But a ‘need’ logically precedes and then entails the reason.

But see a God wouldn’t need those things to make Him exist. Basically this is saying this God knew He existed before He even created anything and the things created will only magnify His existence. This is how “need” doesn’t fit the God concept.



Fathers bring sons into the world through biological means with a female person. But you’re presuming to argue by analogy from those physical events that occur in the experiential world to supposed mystical ones that are beyond experience!

Not really. The physical world is an analogy of what truly happened. It is not trully beyond our experience because our “imaginings” show us how God brought the physical world into existence. Basically going strictly from the scriptures God is showing how He created Jesus and Jesus is showing the processes God went through to create. Jesus is supposed to be everything that God is so in showing how He [God] created Jesus He is showing or revealing Himself also. In short, to know the real Jesus you will know the Father.


Forgive me, but these explanations from faith don’t explain God and nor do they explain how the universe could be observed to begin existing before it existed!

You can observe things before you existed. This is not something based purely on faith. This should be a good example to show one can observe its beginning.


A physical universe brought into existence by a non-physical being is difficult enough to explain. But a physical universe that is brought into existence by a non-physical omnipotent being who has everything and yet has needs to father children is completely incoherent; it is an example of absurdly projecting anthropomorphic qualities onto the concept of Supreme Being. The absurdity can be demonstrated by instantiating the concept without those anthropomorphic qualities, which means that a Supreme Being who is omnipotent and all sufficient but has no needs or wants is logically superior to one who does. And as there cannot be two Supreme Beings it will not be the anthropomorphic one.


God does this for us. He attributes things to Himself that are in the physical world. He says He is like a rock etc etc etc.

 

[McBell]

How can you possibly think or conceive that there can be something before the thing that started everything?

Because you claim that something cannot come from nothing.
Thus the reason you try so hard to push your god.
But now you are implying that something did come from nothing, specifically, your god.
But that cannot be true because something cannot come from nothing.
So if your god can be an exception, so can the universe.
And we have tons more evidence for the universe than we do for your god.

So which is it, is your god an exception to your 'something cannot come from nothing" or is your god also a something that had to come from something?

This makes no sense in any thing, philosophy, science or just plain common sense.Can you answer this directly? Have i answered this? Yes. Again its not possible, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a notion. Science can only keep breaking down things until it reaches a point where there is nothing more to find out. Philosophy says the same thing yet you have yet to show otherwise

Yet you are trying to claim that god is the start of everything.
How can god be the start of everything with out there being a start to god?
Remember YOU are the one who keeps pointing out that there is NOTHING that is eternal.
So by your own logic, god had to come from something.
All I want to know is what that something is.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But you assume that no one can have an understanding of God.

But that's just it. Everyone (theist that is) has an understanding of their god. What validates YOUR perception of a god over another person's god?

Not only is the science evidence and philosophy evidence so is what speaks to your inner spirit.

Now you must define and show evidence of (spirit). At best sciences such as psychology can show is that the believer for one reason or another believes. It in itself is not evidence of the supernatural. Again, there have been strong believers throughout history believing in one god or another. Should we make the assumption that ALL gods do exist? If so then "God" is just another (god). The science of philosophy is in no better position to present evidence of the existence of "God" or any other (gods).

The good science is trying to show or prove that something is there is it not?

If you understand even a little bit about philosophy....it's not out to "prove" the existence of a supernatural. It's an analysis of assumptions or beliefs.

 

[cottage]

The only feasible way God can be part of the causality is that if He never created anything then there would be nothing to know that He exist therefore Him creating caused Him to exist also or better stated, it magnified His existence. Since He already existed, Him creating didn’t make Him exist for the first time but what it did was magnify His existence

The concept of God is utterly and undeniably dependent upon the world; God cannot logically exist without the world, since that is where the belief begins! The world exists and, it is said, so must God. But the only tenuous link between God and the world is causality. Now, there are several problems with this. We don’t actually know whether there is such a thing as causality, and if there is such a thing we don’t know what it is or how it works, but what we do know, however, is that there is no contradiction implied in denying it altogether. So it cannot be argued that God is known by his creative power because that implies that causality exists outside experience, but causality belongs to the world and it cannot be both transcendent and worldly.

I wouldn’t say Hes all that. If you know His plan, you would see like in an analogy of a CEO who has a specific plan for a certain product that it must be made a certain way, no exceptions, then you should be able to see how God is also doing this for His most prized “product” that He is making. Hence He has the plan of making man into His image and the blueprint of doing this must be followed to “T”.

There is no ‘must’ when it comes to God, if he’s omnipotent. And the notion of a ‘prized product’ is surely applying human aspirations to a supreme being that is already sufficient in all things by its very definition.

So wouldn’t this be asking to prove Him by philosophy, logical critical thinking? This has been done.

Actually, it’s never been done! If it had the matter would have been settled thousands of years ago. Critical thinking and logical demonstration are two different things. An inferential argument (Cause) relies on induction, which is to identify a specific fact and then apply it as a general principle or conclusion. The conclusion isn’t entailed and the truth isn’t demonstrated. Example: we experience what we understand as causality in our world and say, therefore, causality exists in all possible worlds. What is required is a deductive argument, and one that is true because it cannot be false. Surely if there were a God, an omnipotent, personal deity, and the creator and sustainer of all things existent, faith would be a total irrelevance because the truth would be as self-evident as 3 x 4 = 12. But it isn’t. Instead, the very reason given for the existence of everything is based not on truth, but belief – an ideological belief in a deity and an inductive belief that the future will be like the past (causation).

Okay lets just say the universe is eternal, self-existent. Wouldn’t this say then that universe is god then and everything is inside this god, this god then would also be personal because it is working in all of the things that are in it. This would explain reality and in our reality anything created inside this universe cannot be destroyed. So we exist, this is reality. We cant be destroyed but only changed. This should also show that we cannot fail exist which would further the universe [and since we are saying the universe is eternal here and is god] to not fail to exist. So in this, the universe or god cannot fail to exist.

Yes. There is nothing at all wrong with the above

But even in this we know that inside of this universe we/you/me had a beginning and that before we were born we technically didn’t exist [unless you believe in reincarnation]. There are things that preceded our beginning that made us. You can say the same thing for an “eternal” universe. In order for an eternal universe to even became known as a universe it would have to gather together all the individual things that is in the universe to a single point, sparking its true beginning. But see all those things preceded this universe/god and made this universe/god come into existence, so this universe/god cannot by definition be eternal or termed the one true god. That says there is something before this universe/god.

Here you are giving special status to ‘us’ in the way of existence. Matter is constantly and continually being recycled and reformed and ‘we’ are included in that changing process, but causality (phenomenon) and matter (physical) are just parts of the world. My argument is that the world (philosophical sense) is all that there is: it is reality and existence itself. Your argument is that reality and existence itself must be dependent upon a further existence or reality for its cause. But causality is just experience, an association of two events and part of the reality!

So you agree?

I absolutely agree that we must answer first to the nature and demands of the universe. We cannot defy gravity unaided by mechanical aids; we cannot survive without oxygen; our life span is dictated by the durability of our genes; and we must sustain ourselves with food and drink etc. We are prisoners of the universe, but that is not to say all of our thoughts and actions within it are complete determined.

But see a God wouldn’t need those things to make Him exist. Basically this is saying this God knew He existed before He even created anything and the things created will only magnify His existence. This is how “need” doesn’t fit the God concept.

Certainly God isn’t compelled to do anything. But God must have a reason for creating the world and a son, and a reason logically entails a need, which contradicts his omnipotence and all sufficiency.

Not really. The physical world is an analogy of what truly happened. It is not trully beyond our experience because our “imaginings” show us how God brought the physical world into existence. Basically going strictly from the scriptures God is showing how He created Jesus and Jesus is showing the processes God went through to create. Jesus is supposed to be everything that God is so in showing how He [God] created Jesus He is showing or revealing Himself also. In short, to know the real Jesus you will know the Father.

To say ‘the physical world is an analogy of what truly happened’ is a rather surprising claim! We can imagine all sorts of fictions by compounding various ideas, but in doing so we must still resort to general experience.

You can observe things before you existed. This is not something based purely on faith. This should be a good example to show one can observe its beginning.

Yes of course we can observe things that pre-exist us, but we are reliant on the universe existing in order to be able to make those observations.We cannot observe the pre-existence of the universe.

God does this for us. He attributes things to Himself that are in the physical world. He says He is like a rock etc etc etc.

I’m sorry but that doesn’t resolve the problem. If a god is dependent upon the material world’s features and desires, then there is room for another, one who is not. And as there cannot be two Supreme Beings it cannot be ‘God’.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apply this question to your question. Can a God destroy Himself and still exist? This is what you are saying of this gopher.

No, that's what you're saying, remember?

Not the eternal gopher. How can something eternal have been created or be killed?

Nah it just turned into energy and later itll reform into a gopher again. See hes eternal

If a thing can be eternal and still be destroyed (or "turned into energy"), then perhaps you can explain how you know this hasn't happened to God.

If being "turned into energy" is inconsistent with being eternal, then it stands to reason that this couldn't happen to an eternal gopher, doesn't it?

 

[AK4]

Because you claim that something cannot come from nothing.
Thus the reason you try so hard to push your god.
But now you are implying that something did come from nothing, specifically, your god.
But that cannot be true because something cannot come from nothing.
So if your god can be an exception, so can the universe.
And we have tons more evidence for the universe than we do for your god.

So which is it, is your god an exception to your 'something cannot come from nothing" or is your god also a something that had to come from something?

From the human standpoint God came from us because, as the argument will go "if we didnt exist to think up the concept of a God, then God doesnt exist", so from that stand point God came from something...us. If God never created anything to know He exists then does He really exist is the human argument. Well i contend if God only created the stars and nothing else would that nullify that He exists? I didnt think so. Of course He would still exist. So from our self inflated egos we think that the only reason God exists is because we conceptualized Him.

From the scriptures standpoint, by the time God introduces Himself to us, God is everything, everything we could possibly think up and then some. From that standpoint it shows no beginning, almost as if He came from nothing. But this is where a higher understanding of God helps. God is everything. Everything is God. Picture a circle and everything is on that circle, point on that circle where it begins. You cant. Pick a spot then to begin at. Now from there everything else comes into being from that starting point. It doesnt matter what it is you point to, everything else will spring out from it. Therefore there isnt a starting point or something that can define where God came from. In otherwords, there is an infinite amount of places where God could "come from something" and an infinite amount of places where He couldnt have "come from". But from nothing is not an option.

And actually if you want to get more scripturally specific the scriptures say wisdom is the principal thing [Prov 4:7 and chapter 8]. So from wisdom you can say God came from [and before you try to go there, all the things that entails wisdom was already in Him, not an outside source].

Yet you are trying to claim that god is the start of everything.
How can god be the start of everything with out there being a start to god?
Remember YOU are the one who keeps pointing out that there is NOTHING that is eternal.

No again i said that there is nothing IN CREATION that is eternal. Big difference.

So by your own logic, god had to come from something.

All I want to know is what that something is.

If ya wanna label it something, the scriptures say Wisdom and all that entails wisdom was already in Him, not from something else.

 

[AK4]

But that's just it. Everyone (theist that is) has an understanding of their god. What validates YOUR perception of a god over another person's god?

If the scriptures are the only one true, absolutely true, revelation of God and i stick to them without contradiction or violation of a precept or principle then i can say that "my"perception of God is over anothers. Actually this is what the God of the scriptures is telling us of Him over the other "gods".

Now you must define and show evidence of (spirit). At best sciences such as psychology can show is that the believer for one reason or another believes. It in itself is not evidence of the supernatural. Again, there have been strong believers throughout history believing in one god or another. Should we make the assumption that ALL gods do exist? If so then "God" is just another (god). The science of philosophy is in no better position to present evidence of the existence of "God" or any other (gods).

I may have to put a little more thought into it but right now the best i can think of to define spirit is consciousness which is life.

 

[AK4]

No, that's what you're saying, remember?




If a thing can be eternal and still be destroyed (or "turned into energy"), then perhaps you can explain how you know this hasn't happened to God.

If being "turned into energy" is inconsistent with being eternal, then it stands to reason that this couldn't happen to an eternal gopher, doesn't it?

I think you took my sarcasm about the gopher serious. I wasnt.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If the scriptures are the only one true, absolutely true, revelation of God and i stick to them without contradiction or violation of a precept or principle then i can say that "my"perception of God is over anothers. Actually this is what the God of the scriptures is telling us of Him over the other "gods".

So it's not evidence you have of yours being the one true word or the one true god..you rest it all on the ("IF"), the assumption that yours is. You interpret that which you are accustomed to as being one and only.

Had you grew up in Israel, Saudi Arabia or India...I say it is quite possible,even more likely than not, you be a follow of one of these faiths. I think, and really, it's not a bad thing, that you and other followers like you are not in a position to show any evidence that "God" actually does exist.

Neither can you show evidence that gods of other religions are fictitious. The flip side to all this is....the non-believer can not as well.....So what do we do with a thread like this?

 

[AK4]

The concept of God is utterly and undeniably dependent upon the world; ....but causality belongs to the world and it cannot be both transcendent and worldly.

I will go with you on your position where you said “since that is where the belief begins” meaning I will not count the spiritual realm.

You said “is that there is no contradiction implied in denying it altogether”. Then one has to ask to things happen for a reason or does it just happen. If things just happen then science is no longer useful. Can you agree on that? If science is used to figure out the reason why something does something or why something happens and its not a contradiction to deny it….well that whole concept is a contradiction in itself.

You said “it cannot be argued that God is known by his creative power because that implies causality exists outside experience”. This is not an entirely true statement. One evidence for the contrary is that of heredity. Heredity as I understand it can cause a lot of things before we can experience them, maybe even before we are born.


There is no ‘must’ when it comes to God, if he’s omnipotent. And the notion of a ‘prized product’ is surely applying human aspirations to a supreme being that is already sufficient in all things by its very definition.

Depends on where you look at it from. God says He does not lie. So when God places a standard upon Himself then He MUST follow it. No changes. So if one truly believes His words “does not lie” then we can have confidence in saying He MUST fulfill what He said He will do.

As for a prized product, this is what we are called. You either believe it or not. Ironically those who believe it and are really chosen know they are His achievement yet we know we are just a worm. In otherwords, humble about our calling.

Surely if there were a God, an omnipotent, personal deity, and the creator and sustainer of all things existent, faith would be a total irrelevance because the truth would be as self-evident as 3 x 4 = 12. But it isn’t. Instead, the very reason given for the existence of everything is based not on truth, but belief – an ideological belief in a deity and an inductive belief that the future will be like the past (causation).


Unless, on purpose, this God concealed the truth. And this is what the scriptures say He has done and we know for a fact that this is the case through not only the scriptures but in almost everything in the world. So if God concealed the truth and made it somewhat believable for both arguments to be believed [in essence, anything one holds to be true is a belief in that thing]…[I got interrupted and forgot where I was going with this].

Yes. There is nothing at all wrong with the above

Okay so at least we nailed down the personal God thing, whether if one contribute this to the universe/god or God we can agree its personal.

Quote:
In order for an eternal universe to even became known as a universe it would have to gather together all the individual things that is in the universe to a single point, sparking its true beginning.

quote: cottage
My argument is that the world (philosophical sense) is all that there is: it is reality and existence itself. Your argument is that reality and existence itself must be dependent upon a further existence or reality for its cause. But causality is just experience, an association of two events and part of the reality!

Im sorry I must rephrase what I said in red because I was wrong. I was looking at it as all coming together then exploding. This is wrong if you apply it God. Its not everything gathers to Him and then “explodes”, its everything comes out from Him. Sorry I was looking at it [the universe] from something like the the big crunch theory or static state theory. You could apply what I said above to the universe [only if those theories are true] but not to God.

Causality is not just experience though. For instance someone all the way across the world could do something that effects something that in the end will effect me. The cause still happens no matter if it effects me or not, whether I experience it or not. Another example, the expression “feeling anothers pain”. One doesn’t have to directly experience someone else’s pain to cause that one to feel, act or whatever upon it or from it. The cause of that persons pain could change the first persons life dramatically or even subtlety,


I absolutely agree that we must answer first to the nature and demands of the universe. We cannot defy gravity unaided by mechanical aids; we cannot survive without oxygen; our life span is dictated by the durability of our genes; and we must sustain ourselves with food and drink etc. We are prisoners of the universe, but that is not to say all of our thoughts and actions within it are complete determined.

Nature is a product of the universe/god. So you admit to answering to the demands of the universe/god?

Our thoughts are controlled by circumstances and from the very beginning the circumstances that are in front of you can never be anything different than what they are/were. You cant unring a bell the famous saying goes. The past cannot be changed. The difference imo is I can say this is from an intelligent being and you attribute the universe/god. In your case, the universe made you be the way you are, including your thoughts. The only way out of this is if we truly had freewill. [And limited freewill is just one of the most ridiculous statements]. And we don’t have freewill.

Certainly God isn’t compelled to do anything. But God must have a reason for creating the world and a son, and a reason logically entails a need, which contradicts his omnipotence and all sufficiency.

If we could ever applied a need to God, it could only be to love and to be good. That’s it. Because if you think about it, how could God love if its only Him? Also how could He be good to only Himself? The drive to be good and loving could have “forced” God to create. And actually I take that back, those wouldn’t be a need then.

We can imagine all sorts of fictions by compounding various ideas, but in doing so we must still resort to general experience.

Agreed and these “imaginings”, according to the scriptures, must not contradict the scriptures. I can only tell you from my experience [hey that works] that since I used to believe a lot of the stuff taught out there in the world and was fully engulfed in them and experiencing the “imaginings” of the world, after coming out of their beliefs God [or just for you, something] is showing me why and how they come up with what they believe. In these “imaginings” I can see how they came to the conclusion of what they believe and it all seems very plausible [and some real wonderful] yet at the same time He shows me the scripture(s) these imaginings contradict and this is how I know they are false. In other words I am “experiencing”.


Yes of course we can observe things that pre-exist us, but we are reliant on the universe existing in order to be able to make those observations.We cannot observe the pre-existence of the universe.


You can through the scriptures if you believe them. There are scriptures that do talk about what was before the universe and earth even Jesus.


If a god is dependent upon the material world’s features and desires, then there is room for another, one who is not.

Hes not dependent upon the worlds features, He gives us examples of stuff that we do know or can relate to. Like I said He said He is like a rock. All Humans should get a pretty good idea what He is trying to convey here. But then you have this one “God is spirit”. Very few really get a grasp at what He means here. Even most of Christendom cant grasp it.

 

[AK4]

I totally agree with everything you said in this post:clap except the first one

So it's not evidence you have of yours being the one true word or the one true god..you rest it all on the ("IF"), the assumption that yours is. You interpret that which you are accustomed to as being one and only.

The "if" is the humble part. Its not that i have doubt or question or am trying to be politically correct. The evidence i do have is in the scriptures first and foremost then everything else can contribute. Im naive to say that only the scriptures hold the truth. There is a little bit a truth out there in almost everything, but some of those truths are mixed with lies and distorts the truth. The other gospels that didnt make it into canon hold some truth in them but also contain lies that dont match up to scriptures. The book of Enoch was very compelling and so close to the truth but it does contain some stuff that dont match up with scripture.

Had you grew up in Israel, Saudi Arabia or India...I say it is quite possible,even more likely than not, you be a follow of one of these faiths. I think, and really, it's not a bad thing, that you and other followers like you are not in a position to show any evidence that "God" actually does exist.

It really is a humbling thing to know that given any other circumstances i could be anyone else with their beliefs and/or disbeliefs. We cant directly show like "here He is"--i guess its a good thing and a bad thing depending on which way you view it or which side of the fence youre on.

Neither can you show evidence that gods of other religions are fictitious. The flip side to all this is....the non-believer can not as well.....So what do we do with a thread like this?

The only way i can show is by using something as a standard, in my case the scriptures, yet they claim to do the same thing with their "bibles".

In a thread like this i think we could all learn from each other, imo. Sometimes you guys can ask a difficult question or state something that may challenge my faith. To me this is a good thing. Most of the time you guys say something that strengthens my faith, not on just blind strengthening but something that i may have to look up prove it matches or doesnt contradict scripture.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I totally agree with everything you said in this post:clap except the first one

The "if" is the humble part. Its not that i have doubt or question or am trying to be politically correct. The evidence i do have is in the scriptures first and foremost then everything else can contribute. Im naive to say that only the scriptures hold the truth. There is a little bit a truth out there in almost everything, but some of those truths are mixed with lies and distorts the truth. The other gospels that didnt make it into canon hold some truth in them but also contain lies that dont match up to scriptures. The book of Enoch was very compelling and so close to the truth but it does contain some stuff that dont match up with scripture.




It really is a humbling thing to know that given any other circumstances i could be anyone else with their beliefs and/or disbeliefs. We cant directly show like "here He is"--i guess its a good thing and a bad thing depending on which way you view it or which side of the fence youre on.



The only way i can show is by using something as a standard, in my case the scriptures, yet they claim to do the same thing with their "bibles".

In a thread like this i think we could all learn from each other, imo. Sometimes you guys can ask a difficult question or state something that may challenge my faith. To me this is a good thing. Most of the time you guys say something that strengthens my faith, not on just blind strengthening but something that i may have to look up prove it matches or doesnt contradict scripture.

I pretty much agree with you on some the views and understand your position.

The OP would like for us to "prove" god doesn't exist. At best the non-believer, IMO, can say (empirical evidence is not available) to show "God" or gods exist. I try my hardest with theist to not go down that route by asking them to "prove it". I can admit that I do ask for evidence though.

When I enter a religious debate I realize the believer believes so that's not an issue. As a devout skeptic I find myself interested in the stories, the history and the traditions rather than demanding evidence for their deity.

 

[McBell]

From the human standpoint God came from us because, as the argument will go "if we didnt exist to think up the concept of a God, then God doesnt exist", so from that stand point God came from something...us.

That is nice and all, but it has nothing to do with the conversation.
Unless of course you are saying that humans made god so that god could make everything.
Hopefully you see the problems with that idea.

If God never created anything to know He exists then does He really exist is the human argument.

Huh?
I NEVER once made that nonsense argument.
In fact, I do not recall anyone making that nonsense argument in this whole thread.

Well i contend if God only created the stars and nothing else would that nullify that He exists? I didnt think so.

Huh?

Of course He would still exist. So from our self inflated egos we think that the only reason God exists is because we conceptualized Him.

From the scriptures standpoint, by the time God introduces Himself to us, God is everything, everything we could possibly think up and then some. From that standpoint it shows no beginning, almost as if He came from nothing. But this is where a higher understanding of God helps. God is everything. Everything is God. Picture a circle and everything is on that circle, point on that circle where it begins. You cant. Pick a spot then to begin at. Now from there everything else comes into being from that starting point. It doesnt matter what it is you point to, everything else will spring out from it. Therefore there isnt a starting point or something that can define where God came from. In otherwords, there is an infinite amount of places where God could "come from something" and an infinite amount of places where He couldnt have "come from". But from nothing is not an option.

You must have forgotten that I am not in your choir.
Long irrelevant rants about what you think the Bible says do not help your argument any.

And actually if you want to get more scripturally specific the scriptures say wisdom is the principal thing [Prov 4:7 and chapter 8]. So from wisdom you can say God came from [and before you try to go there, all the things that entails wisdom was already in Him, not an outside source].

You must have forgotten that I am not in your choir.
Long irrelevant rants about what you think the Bible says do not help your argument any.

No again i said that there is nothing IN CREATION that is eternal. Big difference.

Completely irrelevant to the conversation.
Unless of course you can show evidence of there being a creation that something can be outside of.

If ya wanna label it something, the scriptures say Wisdom and all that entails wisdom was already in Him, not from something else.

Again with the preaching...
Please wake me up when you are done with the preaching.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

If God never created anything to know He exists then does He really exist is the human argument.

Cogito, ergo sum

 

[AK4]

That is nice and all, but it has nothing to do with the conversation.
Unless of course you are saying that humans made god so that god could make everything.
Hopefully you see the problems with that idea.


Huh?
I NEVER once made that nonsense argument.
In fact, I do not recall anyone making that nonsense argument in this whole thread.


Huh?





You must have forgotten that I am not in your choir.
Long irrelevant rants about what you think the Bible says do not help your argument any.


You must have forgotten that I am not in your choir.
Long irrelevant rants about what you think the Bible says do not help your argument any.


Completely irrelevant to the conversation.
Unless of course you can show evidence of there being a creation that something can be outside of.


Again with the preaching...
Please wake me up when you are done with the preaching.

You know, its easy to recognise when one is against the fence and dont have a good rebuttal. Hmmmm.

ps. Was that short enough for you and straight to the point?

 

[AK4]

Cogito, ergo sum

Couldnt this be applied to animals and insects too?

 

[AK4]

I pretty much agree with you on some the views and understand your position.

The OP would like for us to "prove" god doesn't exist. At best the non-believer, IMO, can say (empirical evidence is not available) to show "God" or gods exist. I try my hardest with theist to not go down that route by asking them to "prove it". I can admit that I do ask for evidence though.

When I enter a religious debate I realize the believer believes so that's not an issue. As a devout skeptic I find myself interested in the stories, the history and the traditions rather than demanding evidence for their deity.

Im a skeptic too, hence my motto at the bottom. I found that there are so many lies in the world out there, lies mixed with truth which is the most dangerous. Although christianity doesnt teach it, i know that the bible teaches that it is not written for all to understand it right now and that the whole world is supposed to be decieved.

I know every believer has said one of the major proofs of God is fulfilled prophecy. I try to find new or hardly caught ways to "show" proof. I also realise that every person will come up with their view of God and it will seem perfectly rational to them with what they come up with.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Couldnt this be applied to animals and insects too?

I'm sure it can be applied to most anything depedning on your paradigm.

 

[McBell]

You know, its easy to recognise when one is against the fence and dont have a good rebuttal. Hmmmm.

I have to agree.
You have been jumping around like a Mexican Jumping Bean in a hot skillet for the last several pages.

So are you going to start staying on topic or are you not yet through with your off topicness, preaching and presenting of red herrings?

ps. Was that short enough for you and straight to the point?

Yes.
Thank you.