You Can't Argue Against God

[F1fan]

Yes, or at least I don't know that God works the same for everybody. So I don't claim God as such.

Could it be that God doesn't exist in how people imagine it, and how "God works" is up to how individuals imagine it?

I don't equate God with gravity.

Gravity exists as a force, so are you saying God doesn't equate to real things and forces?

If you disagree, then what do you mean when you use the word "God"?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There is always someone about trying to coerce you into something. I look at it as a way to work on my anti-coercion defense.

Which is why it's important to be able to argue. I am told lots of things about God and religion in order to go to church or vote a particular way, so sometimes I find I need to argue about this. Often, the person knows more about the subject than I do, but I, in turn, know more about other things, in particular, my personal reasons for not wanting to attend Church or vote a certain way.

Where this line of coercion concerns God, it is irrelevant how much I know about God. I can argue with the person based on the simple fact that their premises often depend on a book compiled from various sources for a long ago people containing events that defy reality.

 

[F1fan]

Sure, although it is hard to fully comprehend the eternal existence of anything.

That's what we have science to work on, and it does extremely well.

Some pick that to be energy, some pick that to be God. I tend to think the "universe" has always existed in some form or another even though I can't understand how it is possible.

I suggest Abrahamics and Hindus learning inaccurate cultural lore that tells children that the universe was created is part of this dilemma.

I accept it is something I will probably never have a answer for so your pick is as good as any.

I notice many folks have a sort of learned anxiety, and a need to have answers even when no credible answers are available. They will adopt false expalanations just to satisfy the itch to have something to believe. There's a wisdom in being able to live without having certain answers.

 

[Nakosis]

Which is why it's important to be able to argue. I am told lots of things about God and religion in order to go to church or vote a particular way, so sometimes I find I need to argue about this. Often, the person knows more about the subject than I do, but I, in turn, know more about other things, in particular, my personal reasons for not wanting to attend Church or vote a certain way.

Where this line of coercion concerns God, it is irrelevant how much I know about God. I can argue with the person based on the simple fact that their premises often depend on a book compiled from various sources for a long ago people containing events that defy reality.

Different people have different concepts of reality.
I find it difficult to argue with someone who has a different concept of reality.
I usually end up having to simply tell them my concept of reality is different.

 

[Nakosis]

Could it be that God doesn't exist in how people imagine it, and how "God works" is up to how individuals imagine it?

I try not to imagine how a God works or if I do at least presume I am probably wrong.
However, if a God existed then it would have to explain what is. So as long as an explanation which uses God doesn't contradict what is as I know it to exist.

Gravity exists as a force, so are you saying God doesn't equate to real things and forces?

If you disagree, then what do you mean when you use the word "God"?

What I'd mean is the creator of everything. So the "creator or everything" would have the ability to change how gravity works.

 

[wellwisher]

No you don’t need that - whether the universe is external or corresponds with what ‘science’ says about it or not, God hasn’t shown up as a detectable part of it that would allow for the god concept to be put into the same category as solar rays or Pepsi cola cans.

We live in space-time where space and time are tethered like two people in a three legged race. We all exist at this point of time but in different spaces. What would happen if we separated space-time into separated space and separated time, with each variable able to act independently. If I could move in space, apart from time, I could be omnipresent, which is a classic attribute of God. In the case of all of us moving forward at this time in space-time but in separates spaces, if space-time as to separate we could also occupy the same space. This is not possible in space-time. This is a very simply math extrapolation that leads to divine results. Science has a way, if they are seeking truth and not just enforcing a space-time religion called naturalism.

Proof of separated space and time can be found in the quantum world. For example, quantum entanglement is where two particles can synchronize in time; movement in time, not limited by distance and the speed of light for coordination.

Theoretically one can make our space-time universe from separated space and time, but not the other way around. Space-time is a special case, where space and time bond; tether, thereby setting limits we call the laws of physics. However, separated space and separated time have infinite possibilities and complexity, since these limits do not apply. Separated space and time is the source of the 2nd law; adds change and increasing complexity in space-time as space-time returns to where it came from.

It is traditional to have God more ethereal; spirit, than solid, since space-time is more solid, while separated space and time is more airy. Once Physics catches on to the concept and math then they will have the tools they need to settle this.

 

[F1fan]

I try not to imagine how a God works or if I do at least presume I am probably wrong.

When you use the word "God" do you think it correlates to something that exists? Or is just an abstraction like Hobbit that doesn't correlate to anything in reality, but has meaning to humans?

However, if a God existed then it would have to explain what is.

Well, since no Gods do explain themselves, that would suggest they don't exist. Of course it's you imposing this requirement on Gods.

So as long as an explanation which uses God doesn't contradict what is as I know it to exist.

Well the explanations would all come from humans, not any actual God.

What I'd mean is the creator of everything. So the "creator or everything" would have the ability to change how gravity works.

Why? Did it make a mistake? Wouldn't a creator know what its doing? And of course, it's you imposing this "ability" on a creator. Have you considered the idea that a creator might not be able to change gravity? Think how a sudden change would create absolute chaos in the universe.

Of course, none of this matters since no God, no creator is known to exist, not able to cause anything if it did. Nature functions the way it does because it has the properties it does.

 

[Nakosis]

When you use the word "God" do you think it correlates to something that exists? Or is just an abstraction like Hobbit that doesn't correlate to anything in reality, but has meaning to humans?

IDK, but if a God existed, that's what I'd relate it to.

Well, since no Gods do explain themselves, that would suggest they don't exist. Of course it's you imposing this requirement on Gods.

Or suggest they don't care if you believe they exist. However, again, different people impose different requirements on God.

Well the explanations would all come from humans, not any actual God.

Or at least until a God shows up. Christians certainly believe a God showed up to explain things to them.

Why? Did it make a mistake? Wouldn't a creator know what its doing?

I don't know that a creator has to be omniscient. Perhaps this is all experimental. Perhaps God creates millions of universes with different parameters to see what happens.

And of course, it's you imposing this "ability" on a creator. Have you considered the idea that a creator might not be able to change gravity? Think how a sudden change would create absolute chaos in the universe.

Just by definition. "Creator of everything" would have to include the creation of gravity. Certainly someone could have a different definition of a God that couldn't change gravity.

Of course, none of this matters since no God, no creator is known to exist, not able to cause anything if it did. Nature functions the way it does because it has the properties it does.

Yes, as far as you know. Other people believe in a different reality. Generally as long as it doesn't directly contradict what they experience. People are pretty good at fitting their experience of reality into their concept of it.

 

[Tomef]

We live in space-time where space and time are tethered like two people in a three legged race. We all exist at this point of time but in different spaces. What would happen if we separated space-time into separated space and separated time, with each variable able to act independently. If I could move in space, apart from time, I could be omnipresent, which is a classic attribute of God. In the case of all of us moving forward at this time in space-time but in separates spaces, if space-time as to separate we could also occupy the same space. This is not possible in space-time. This is a very simply math extrapolation that leads to divine results. Science has a way, if they are seeking truth and not just enforcing a space-time religion called naturalism.

Proof of separated space and time can be found in the quantum world. For example, quantum entanglement is where two particles can synchronize in time; movement in time, not limited by distance and the speed of light for coordination.

Theoretically one can make our space-time universe from separated space and time, but not the other way around. Space-time is a special case, where space and time bond; tether, thereby setting limits we call the laws of physics. However, separated space and separated time have infinite possibilities and complexity, since these limits do not apply. Separated space and time is the source of the 2nd law; adds change and increasing complexity in space-time as space-time returns to where it came from.

It is traditional to have God more ethereal; spirit, than solid, since space-time is more solid, while separated space and time is more airy. Once Physics catches on to the concept and math then they will have the tools they need to settle this.

You could use that kind of argument for anything. I could claim black holes are living, sentient beings with distinct personalities, or anything else and just say ‘well science can’t explain it yet, but it will!’. It’s specious, it only makes sense for someone who already believes god exists and hence assumes there will be proof of that, somewhere.

 

[stevecanuck]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against for something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against for something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

Same thing?

 

[Nakosis]

Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against for something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against for something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

Same thing?

Let's say they are the same.
Would you agree with one argument but not the other?

 

[stevecanuck]

Let's say they are the same.
Would you agree with one argument but not the other?

Not really. One who says something exists bears the burden of proof. Rejection of any claim, including the existence of god(s), need only rest on lack of proof of said claim.

In other words, Saying, "Prove there's not a god" is not the equivalent of saying "Prove there is a god".

 

[Nakosis]

Not really. One who says something exists bears the burden of proof. Rejection of any claim, including the existence of god(s), need only rest on lack of proof of said claim.

In other words, Saying, "Prove there's not a god" is not the equivalent of saying "Prove there is a god".

Which argument is trying to prove the existence of a God?

 

[Sargonski]

Genesis (so, the Bible) is quite clear on this
There was nothing, and God created everything

No .. not near as clear as you would have us believe Brother Stv .. there is no God creating "Everything" in the original Hebrew version of the story . The story is not of the creation of the whole universe .. but of earth .. which is formed not by God willing everything into existence .. but by the interactions among the primordial Gods of Nature ... who then spawn the anthropomorphic Gods who end up creating humans "Like US - In Our Image" they say ..

Someone has duped you into the "God of Everything" fallacy .. the existentialist fallacy of the God who is not Nothing .. out of the primordial ooze comes order from the chaos .. this is not a fairy tale battle between Good and Evil .. but between light and dark .. order and chaos .. positive and negative .. the twin primordial forces .. who later spawn "The Gods" having great Godly powers.. and great Godly battles.

So .. while the spoon fed propagandas story "God is Everything" may well be a good one in the minds of many --- It has nothing to do with the Sacred Bible story as you suggest .. and for some reason thought was quite clear .. but, this is not so I fear

 

[Sargonski]

Which argument is trying to prove the existence of a God?

Asking someone to prove a claim is not an argument ?

 

[Sargonski]

These are a set of sentence fragments that aren't coherent.

Then figure out what you believe and state it in coherent sentences using proper punctuation.

I don't define Gods. It's others who believe in Gods, and it's up to them to explain what they believe.

Converse means "to talk". We can't talk to things that don't speak, have language, or not sentient. You can talk to trees, but it will not be a conversation.

No Gods are known to exist.

I have no God.

If you do then define it.

I don't have any God to define, as I have explained. Where is your definition? Being evasive?

More incoherent ramblings.

The part where you defined your God. Oh wait, you haven't yet.

what a goofy bunch of gibberish . running around crying "incoherent ramblings" .. refusing to define your terms without which we have no idea what you are saying .. pretending chasing typo's is an argument for something ..

Dude .. your claim "No Gods are known to exist" - is complete false nonsense. The Sun Exists .. worshiped by many as a God ..

hence why you have been asked to define why you mean by God .. your statements and claims are complete gibberish without such definiton .. its not rocket science we are talking here .. yet you are coming off like a religious zelot doing some dance of denial .. Sup with dat ? and the .. typo chaser .. LOL .. give me strength Lord Jesus . my faith in humanity is weak.

 

[Nakosis]

Asking someone to prove a claim is not an argument ?

No one is being asked to prove a claim.

 

[stevecanuck]

Which argument is trying to prove the existence of a God?

Could you please be more specific?

 

[PureX]

what a goofy bunch of gibberish . running around crying "incoherent ramblings" .. refusing to define your terms without which we have no idea what you are saying .. pretending chasing typo's is an argument for something ..

Dude .. your claim "No Gods are known to exist" - is complete false nonsense. The Sun Exists .. worshiped by many as a God ..

hence why you have been asked to define why you mean by God .. your statements and claims are complete gibberish without such definiton .. its not rocket science we are talking here .. yet you are coming off like a religious zelot doing some dance of denial .. Sup with dat ? and the .. typo chaser .. LOL .. give me strength Lord Jesus . my faith in humanity is weak.

You don't understand. The God that he doesn't believe in is whatever God you DO believe in. So he needs YOU to tell him what God YOU believe in first so he can then tell you that he doesn't believe in it.

 

[firedragon]

Which is your assertion.
This is your assumption of how reality has to work, not mine.

Well, I gave the reason for my assertion. What is your reason that a produce of matter like wind if your God and the producer or creator of the wind is not?

Can you give a reasonable answer?