Your best argument that god exists

[kepha31]

No

The claim he exist is an assertion based on mythology in theology.

Depends on what you mean by "mythology" because the term is like an adjustable wrench. It's context needs to be clear, i.e., "factual mythology". I've not yet seen your private definition of "theology" and unless we get those two rabbit holes filled in it's like nailing jelly to a wall.

Mythology
Mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am assuming you accept this as a starting source. It's a very complex topic. Mythology, in it's most general terms, does not disprove the existence of God. That is not what the field of study is for.

"The crucial idea is that myth is not simply a collection of stories permanently fixed to a particular time and place in history, but an ongoing social practice within every society." Ibid.

The Church is a society with "ongoing social practices" found within most, if not all, societies. That does not prove the existence of God on the surface, but mythology does not disprove it either.

The burden lies squarely on the theist to make their case.

That depends on what we are trying to accomplish. The burden is mine if I am trying to give you reasons why God exists. The burden is yours if you are trying to convince me God does not exist.

It is a burden that has never been met.

Only if you don't want it to.

 

[outhouse]

Mythology, in it's most general terms, does not disprove the existence of God.

No one can prove imagination does not exist, so prove is not the correct term here.

The fact man has created thousands of deities in the past, means you will have a tough time showing evidence man did not create the concept you call god.

Now when we look at the evidence we see early Israelites using pre existing Canaanite gods. We see them combining two gods into one by a political move alone with King Josiah's reforms.

We also see much of the first five books as pseudo history that never took place as written.

We also see people adding to the concept of god by another culture adding the son of god, a term first given to the Emperor.

We also see later religions redefining the concept with islam

Mormons

LDS

ect ect

Only man so far has created and defined and written and redefined the deity concepts

The burden is mine if I am trying to give you reasons why God exists.

Actually I need to prove nothing because no god exist scientifically as of yet.

It has nothing to do with any reason why he might exist. You claim he does, which places the burden on you to substantiate that claim.

 

[outhouse]

Depends on what you mean by "mythology"

Parts of the bible according to scholars contain fiction and pseudo history.

 

[Bunyip]

The default is a posit. The world is positive.

Default means to fall back on what is usual or a standard--the "default of belief" is a usual or standard belief. You've suggested that "not believing" is the belief that people default to, which defies what "default" means. To "default to" the usual belief would be a belief, not "a nonexistence of belief." Nonexistence doesn't exist. There is no "state of no belief"--not believing is not a state. The world is positive. To say there is a "default belief," is, by definition, to say that there is some belief defaulted to.

Sheesh Wilma, now you are having to call it a 'posit', and not a 'positive' - because even you can not spin that hard.
The default of a given belief is simply not holding that belief.

 

[McBell]

My argument that God exists is this- observe creation, it's aesthetically pleasing, harmonious, it's the work of a master craftsman. Random genetic mutations, mostly harmful to nature could never have achieved this.

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses does not work very well with those outside your choir.

 

[McBell]

Do you believe 1 + 1 is 2? or do you know it is 2?

I know that 1+1 can equal 2.
I also know that it can equal 1.
I also know that 1+1 can equal 10.

The list goes on and on...

 

[Willamena]

Sheesh Wilma, now you are having to call it a 'posit', and not a 'positive' - because even you can not spin that hard.
The default of a given belief is simply not holding that belief.

Um, what?

 

[Ouroboros]

I know that 1+1 can equal 2.
I also know that it can equal 1.

Oh. Didn't think of OR.

I also know that 1+1 can equal 10.

And didn't think of binary either.

LOL!

So true.

 

[Bunyip]

Um, what?

Disbelieving a claim is neither a 'posit', nor a positive. It is the default.

 

[Bunyip]

I know that 1+1 can equal 2.
I also know that it can equal 1.
I also know that 1+1 can equal 10.

The list goes on and on...

They used to ask the aboriginals math questions. Say you have an eagle sitting on a power line, and another eagle turns up - how many eagles do you have now?

The answer is one. Eagles don't like to sit together.

 

[Ouroboros]

They used to ask the aboriginals math questions. Say you have an eagle sitting on a power line, and another eagle turns up - how many eagles do you have now?

The answer is one. Eagles don't like to sit together.

I have another one.

10 birds sit in a tree. You shoot one. How many are left?

None. They all got scared and flew away.

 

[Willamena]

Disbelieving a claim is neither a 'posit', nor a positive. It is the default.

To disbelieve requires something to disbelieve: that proposition is the posit, the same one the theist believes. The theist believes, "There is (a) god," (positively) and the atheist disbelieves, "There is (a) god" (positively).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can think of a few great examples, just off the top of my head. Sai Baba, William Wallace, St Joseph of Cupertino, St Francis of Assisi, it is not uncommon.

...Haile Selassie, Elvis Presley...

Deification of dead Roman emperors was common.

 

[outhouse]

I know that 1+1 can equal 2.
I also know that it can equal 1.
I also know that 1+1 can equal 10.

The list goes on and on...

Ah but context is key. And I did make it perfectly clear.

And if you answer a grade school test of 1 + 1 = and answer one or ten you fail.

 

[Not Bob]

Ellie Arroway: Is it possible that it didn't happen? Yes. As a scientist, I must concede that, I must volunteer that.
Michael Kitz: Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You admit that you have absolutely no physical evidence to back up your story.
Ellie Arroway: Yes.
Michael Kitz: You admit that you very well may have hallucinated this whole thing.
Ellie Arroway: Yes.
Michael Kitz: You admit that if you were in our position, you would respond with exactly the same degree of incredulity and skepticism!
Ellie Arroway: Yes!
Michael Kitz: [standing, angrily] Then why don't you simply withdraw your testimony, and concede that this "journey to the center of the galaxy," in fact, never took place!
Ellie Arroway: Because I can't. I... had an experience... I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever... A vision... of the universe, that tells us, undeniably, how tiny, and insignificant and how... rare, and precious we all are! A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater then ourselves, that we are *not*, that none of us are alone! I wish... I... could share that... I wish, that everyone, if only for one... moment, could feel... that awe, and humility, and hope. But... That continues to be my wish.

-Contact

 

[Ouroboros]

Ah but context is key. And I did make it perfectly clear.

And if you answer a grade school test of 1 + 1 = and answer one or ten you fail.

Depends which class.

In CS you can have the question "1+1=1" ( "+" is used as a symbol for OR in logic at times. "*" for AND.)

Also, binary addition: 0001+0001=0010, also fundamental CS.

 

[outhouse]

Depends which class.

It would if the context I used had changed. But my context, was more then quite obvious.


I think his point could have also been, we know much more without a need for belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

It would if the context I used had changed. But my context, was more then quite obvious.

That's the point though, right? Context is very important for a truth to be true. Context frames the definitions, so in certain contexts, certain claims are true and others are not, and in other contexts, these things can change. Belief, just like knowledge about truths, is based on context as well. Just something to think about.

I think his point could have also been, we know much more without a need for belief.

Context again. We all have beliefs in the general context. Don't tell me that you don't have any beliefs at all? In anything?

 

[Johnlove]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

(John 14:8-10) “Philip said,’ Lord, let us see the Father and then we shall be satisfied’. ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip? Said Jesus to him ‘and you still do not know me? “To have seen me is to have seen the Father, so how can you say, “Let us see the Father.”


You did not ask me who told me that the Father and Jesus are one, but I will tell you anyway.


Jesus told me he and the Father are one. Jesus personally told me is God.


Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is God. I know this because I have seen Jesus, and he has told me he is God.


Only God can convince one to know God, so there is no way I will ever try.


(1 Corinthians 2:10-13) “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit reaches the depts. Of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of a man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God”

 

[outhouse]

That's the point though, right?

The point is I know, I don't believe.