Your best argument that god exists

[paarsurrey]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists.​

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. Our G-d is identified by many attributes or these good attributes identify him. I give some of His attributes:

[2:256]Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.
Quran : Chapter 2
​

He has existed always and has communicated with righteous persons in every region of the world and in all ages.
His communication identifies that He exists.

Regards

 

[Skwim]

You mean the link you provided ?

Yeah. It's as good as any summation I've come across.

abiogenesis.​

 

[Skwim]

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. Our G-d is identified by many attributes or these good attributes identify him. I give some of His attributes:

[2:256]Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.
Quran : Chapter 2
​

He has existed always and has communicated with righteous persons in every region of the world and in all ages.
His communication identifies that He exists.

Regards

Okay, but citing attributes aren't an argument, and they're certainly aren't going to convince. Sorry.

 

[paarsurrey]

Okay, but citing attributes aren't an argument, and they're certainly aren't going to convince. Sorry.

I don't agree with you.
The attributes are at work in the Universe/s since inception hence it is good and valid argument.
I am not convincing anybody per force and I don't have to.

Regards

 

[Skwim]

I don't agree with you.
The attributes are at work in the Universe/s since inception hence it is good and valid argument.

And I say it isn't a good argument at all. It's like being asked to convince us that automobiles exist, and you start telling us they have rubber tires, headlights, a radio, and an automatic transmission.

I am not convincing anybody per force and I don't have to.

Then why bother with a thread looking for: "Your best argument that god exists," and asks you to "Identify your god and convince us that it exists"?

 

[kepha31]

Which is no better a strawman than this picture. Atheism is just a rejection of a claim, anything after this point any other view nothing to do with atheism but personal preference of the individual.

Does this picture represent your belief? It is not absurd once all the details are removed from a view to believe this? Is the belief nonsense or is the picture a strawman which make it nonsense itself?

It's a patently stupid quote. God did not create original sin. It makes no mention of free will, something you need to come to terms with. If someone punches you in the face, the quote says God condemned the assailant to punch you in the face. Even an idiot can see how stupid that is. God had nothing to do with you getting punched in the face but the quote blames God. Jesus did not kill himself as a sacrifice to himself, that's absurd. Jesus freely gave Himself up out of love for humanity. In your world, love does not exist beyond bio-chemical social constructs. How tragic. God did not originally condemn man to sin, He originally created man to share His divine life, and God did not make man robots. The quote is ridiculous; one straw man after another, an expression of profound ignorance of Christianity, atheistic comic book theology.

 

[McBell]

It's a patently stupid quote. God did not create original sin. It makes no mention of free will, something you need to come to terms with. If someone punches you in the face, the quote says God condemned the assailant to punch you in the face. Even an idiot can see how stupid that is. God had nothing to do with you getting punched in the face but the quote blames God. Jesus did not kill himself as a sacrifice to himself, that's absurd. Jesus freely gave Himself up out of love for humanity. In your world, love does not exist beyond bio-chemical social constructs. How tragic. God did not originally condemn man to sin, He originally created man to share His divine life, and God did not make man robots. The quote is ridiculous; one straw man after another, an expression of profound ignorance of Christianity, atheistic comic book theology.

Just for clarification...
you are talking about your signature, right?

 

[Bunyip]

It's a patently stupid quote. God did not create original sin. It makes no mention of free will, something you need to come to terms with. If someone punches you in the face, the quote says God condemned the assailant to punch you in the face. Even an idiot can see how stupid that is. God had nothing to do with you getting punched in the face but the quote blames God. Jesus did not kill himself as a sacrifice to himself, that's absurd. Jesus freely gave Himself up out of love for humanity. In your world, love does not exist beyond bio-chemical social constructs. How tragic. God did not originally condemn man to sin, He originally created man to share His divine life, and God did not make man robots. The quote is ridiculous; one straw man after another, an expression of profound ignorance of Christianity, atheistic comic book theology.

Sure, it is a patently stupid quote - so why do you post it at the bottom of your comments?

 

[outhouse]

It's a patently stupid quote.

Who are you to judge?

 

[psychoslice]

I don't agree with you.
The attributes are at work in the Universe/s since inception hence it is good and valid argument.
I am not convincing anybody per force and I don't have to.

Regards

But with a good imagination you can place any attributes onto it, it means nothing, well at least not a god.

 

[LuisDantas]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

I don't know that I would call it "my god", but my understanding of what god is makes him very much a real if overemphasized thing.

Gods are a name people give to that which they want to value, use as a final argument, or to impress. Sometimes it is another word for "mystery", but with a lot of emotional expectations.

In that sense they surely do exist, ironically enough as far less important and less admirable entities than their creators usually assume them to be.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He has existed always and has communicated with righteous persons in every region of the world and in all ages. His communication identifies that He exists.

The last one through Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Mujaddid (divine reformer), the promised Messiah and Mahdi. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared that Jesus had in fact survived crucifixion and migrated to Kashmir, where he died a natural death and that the notion of his physical return was therefore erroneous. He claimed to have been divinely appointed as the Messiah, in the likeness of Jesus in fulfilment of Islam's eschatological prophecies. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a 'non-law-bearing' prophet within Islam. (Based on Wikipedia article on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad).

 

[paarsurrey]

The last one through Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Mujaddid (divine reformer), the promised Messiah and Mahdi. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared that Jesus had in fact survived crucifixion and migrated to Kashmir, where he died a natural death and that the notion of his physical return was therefore erroneous. He claimed to have been divinely appointed as the Messiah, in the likeness of Jesus in fulfilment of Islam's eschatological prophecies. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a 'non-law-bearing' prophet within Islam. (Based on Wikipedia article on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad).

Yes , he was the end-time reformer as prophesied by all the religions. G-d spoke to him as He has always spoken to the righteous people in all regions of the world and at all times. Converse/communication by G-d is a strong argument for existing of G-d.

Thanks and regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes , he was the end-time reformer as prophesied by all the religions. G-d spoke to him as He has always spoken to the righteous people in all regions of the world and at all times. Converse/communication by G-d is a strong argument for existing of G-d.

Thanks and regards

I wish I knew why people think so.

The world would be very different from what it is if the God of the Abrahamic religions did exist. Among other reasons, because theistic doctrines would be clearer and less at odd with each other.

That the concept keeps resurfacing in some shape or another despite a glaring lack of evidence and of logical sense shows that there is a widespread desire to believe in it, perhaps due to bicameralism. But there is a world of difference between what people want to believe in (everyone wants to be favored at some level, I think) and what really is.

Also, it takes quite a lot of good will to attempt to see some kind of coherent source for the existing varied of supernatural beliefs. If anything, they point very strongly towards the existence of many gods that are far less eccentric and less improbable than that of Ibrahim.

Bicameralism (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shad]

It's a patently stupid quote. God did not create original sin. It makes no mention of free will, something you need to come to terms with. If someone punches you in the face, the quote says God condemned the assailant to punch you in the face. Even an idiot can see how stupid that is. God had nothing to do with you getting punched in the face but the quote blames God. Jesus did not kill himself as a sacrifice to himself, that's absurd. Jesus freely gave Himself up out of love for humanity. In your world, love does not exist beyond bio-chemical social constructs. How tragic. God did not originally condemn man to sin, He originally created man to share His divine life, and God did not make man robots. The quote is ridiculous; one straw man after another, an expression of profound ignorance of Christianity, atheistic comic book theology.

And atheism make no claims regarding how the universe started/began or whatever you wish to call the term.

I was saying your picture is just as bad as the one I linked but instead of reading what I posted you got emotional and went on a tangent. I said both are strawman. Chill out.

 

[Shad]

I wish I knew why people think so.

The world would be very different from what it is if the God of the Abrahamic religions did exist. Among other reasons, because theistic doctrines would be clearer and less at odd with each other.

That the concept keeps resurfacing in some shape or another despite a glaring lack of evidence and of logical sense shows that there is a widespread desire to believe in it, perhaps due to bicameralism. But there is a world of difference between what people want to believe in (everyone wants to be favored at some level, I think) and what really is.

Also, it takes quite a lot of good will to attempt to see some kind of coherent source for the existing varied of supernatural beliefs. If anything, they point very strongly towards the existence of many gods that are far less eccentric and less improbable than that of Ibrahim.

Bicameralism (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is a vain attempt at appearing as a pluralistic religion by co-opting anything similar by fallacious parallelism. Islam has done this as part of it's foundation from the start

 

[kepha31]

Would that be better then following ancient mens mythology they know absolutely nothing about?

Ancient mens mythology? The real myth makers are the Modernist professors who pass off their lies as scholarly truth, deny the Resurrection, and blind themselves to the facts the rise of the Church which is a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself.
How many of the first Pope's were martyred? Pick a number that best suits your "historicity" agenda.
The Myth of Candida Moss | The American Catholic

 

[raph]

The world would be very different from what it is if the God of the Abrahamic religions did exist. Among other reasons, because theistic doctrines would be clearer and less at odd with each other.

Why would they be clearer and less at odd with each other? So it is impossible for YHWH to exist, because the Bible could be clearer? Maybe there are other reasons for it. One reason could be that YHWH made the theistic doctrines unclear, so the unbelievers have something to nag about.
There is no reason why YHWH can't exist. There are only some reasons, why the imaginery YHWH that you made in your head, can't exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why would they be clearer and less at odd with each other?

To put it in very broad strokes, most deity concepts are somewhat regional and/or ethnic. They are supposed to be taken with the IMO decisive help of a cultural understanding.

While Abrahamics often pride themselves of having a concept of One True God (and the implication that others are in some sense false gods), that ends up saddling them with deep contradictions which they don't really have the power to address at all adequately. They expect God to enlighten them or even to simply to side with them arbitrarily, often while recognizing that so are their enemies and that they literally do not deserve such arbitrary favor.

I don't believe in other deities either, but for the most part they don't seem to be quite as weird as many Christians and Muslims seem to assume theirs to be.

So it is impossible for YHWH to exist, because the Bible could be clearer?

I don't know that the Bible has much of a role to play there, but his hypothetical existence is more like pointless than quite impossible. YHWH, if taken literally, looks to be about as worth of worship as Azathoth. Or even Nyarlathotep.

One would expect a true god to, you know, inspire actual religious wisdom in his worshippers. In that respect I find YHWH quite pitiable.

Maybe there are other reasons for it. One reason could be that YHWH made the theistic doctrines unclear, so the unbelievers have something to nag about.

I don't think quite so little of YHWH, which is saying something, seeing how I think it would be for the world's vast benefit if he were never conceived of.

There is no reason why YHWH can't exist. There are only some reasons, why the imaginery YHWH that you made in your head, can't exist.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[raph]

To put it in very broad strokes, most deity concepts are somewhat regional and/or ethnic. They are supposed to be taken with the IMO decisive help of a cultural understanding.

Yes of course. People describe everything in their cultural context. A true God would be no exception.

While Abrahamics often pride themselves of having a concept of One True God (and the implication that others are in some sense false gods), that ends up saddling them with deep contradictions which they don't really have the power to address at all adequately. They expect God to enlighten them or even to simply to side with them arbitrarily, often while recognizing that so are their enemies and that they literally do not deserve such arbitrary favor.

There can only be 1 absolute God, it doesn't matter how you call him. Which enemies? As far as I know, whenever YHWH appeared, he has won against every other God.

I don't believe in other deities either, but for the most part they don't seem to be quite as weird as many Christians and Muslims seem to assume theirs to be.

I dont know, what you mean by wierd. Other deities are not all powerful and absolute. What is really wierd, is to call such deities, deities.

I don't know that the Bible has much of a role to play there, but his hypothetical existence is more like pointless than quite impossible. YHWH, if taken literally, looks to be about as worth of worship as Azathoth. Or even Nyarlathotep.

I like HP Lovecraft, his audiobooks help me sleep
Azatoth is not absolute, he is blind and midless and there are other gods beside him. It doesn't even matter, because Lovecraft was a (genius) fiction writer, and he never claimed to be sent by God. If he made this claim, we would need to examine his writings, wether they live up to such a claim.

One would expect a true god to, you know, inspire actual religious wisdom in his worshippers. In that respect I find YHWH quite pitiable.

You forget, that people 2600 years ago were very stupid. How could God teach them the spirituality of the 21. century? God teaches as much, as people can bear at the moment. Even though the old testament has much religious wisdom in it (that atheists don't look at, because it isn't emberassing like the genocides), the NT brings a clearer understanding of God, the Quran is a reminder, and more made for wild arabs. Baha'u'llahs writings are full of wisdom, and I can't think of any wisdom, that YHWH doesn't teach through Him. What religious wisdom, that YHWH failed to deliver, were you talking about exactly?