J
judynurse
Guest
How true!!
Could an argument ever persuade/dissuade you from believing in God?
- Status
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
And at this particular time in the endless chain of new universes being banged out we just happen to be enjoying the happy coincidence of being part of a rare evolutionary development (out of an infinite number of possibilities) that produces the human species with its attributes of intelligence and self-awareness which allows us to discuss these possibilities and exchange the most abstract of ideas here on the Forum. Now why didn’t I think of that? Just kidding! Now add the alleged revealed truth of the God-man, Jesus Christ, and His explanations to us of hundreds of years of Biblical writings purported to be under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and His recorded works, and His claims to being the Deity Itself, and the implausibility of all the witnesses to His existence being a flawless conspiracy that has lasted in toto all these centuries, Add to that the witness of the Holy Spirit as perceived by our spirits— oh, I forgot… that is only spiritually discerned. And imagine this freakish longevity of of the Holy Catholic Church whose founder claimed that it would/could never be destroyed— can you think of any other human organization, government, corporation, etc., that can boast of such a track record? I base my faith on things I can see and evaluate with my human intelligence, and ascribing everything that exists to an endless and mindless series of big bangs, of endless expansions and contractions of matter and energy, just does not get it with me-- it just strikes me as preposterous on the face of it. But, that’s just me. Apparently, you find value in your conviction-- far be it from me to attack your intellectual integrity. Or are you simply musing? Maybe this is not a deeply held conviction, but only a fanciful imagining, a passing whim.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
I don’t generally base my beliefs on what makes me happy, but rather on what I find to be true. I’d be very happy if there was a diety who would put everyone in heaven when they died no matter what- wouldn’t that be swell? But I don’t beleive that, and neither do you.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
If the universe has been going on forever, it’s not just chance that this universe occurred- it’s inevitable. With infinite trials, every possible occurrence happens infinitely many times.
And the fact that people beleive something to be true is hardly compelling. Mohammad managed to build one of the fastest growing empires (if not the fastest) based solely on the claim that he was occasionally possessed by God. People were tortured, starved, died, and of course fought based solely on their beleif in Islam.
And plenty of human institutions have had longer lives than th church- ancient Egypt lasted about 3000 years before becoming a piece if Rome. If the Holy See is still around in the year 3000, we’ll have to reconsider. And of course, several religions outdate Christianity.
And I’m not certain that I beleive that our universe has been existing in that manner forever- it’s just a possible explanation. The point being, the assumption of a diety as the “first mover” isn’t needed. If you beleive that the universe must have a creator, what created the creator? If you beleive that the creator is the exception and doesn’t need a creator of its own, then why not save a step and say that the universe doesn’t need a creator?
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
No, too many personal spiritual experiences. This doesn’t mean I always like God - sometimes I think He’s very unfair.
But there’s no way an argument could dissuade me due to experiences eg.
- Three “double whammies” - like a breath going through you in waves from head to foot - in each case used to highlight what someone was saying.
- Apparition of my father the night he died, including the final scene of a blood curdling scream just before he disappeared. I was an atheist at that time too.
- Heavy gripping pressures and other demonic influences (ie. if the devil exists, then God does too).
- A prophetic pastor who was so accurate with his predictions that only God could have been telling him what was going to happen.
- A “voice” specifically addressing specific topics in no uncertain fashion eg. “Bob, is (young lady) SUITED to you?!!” (out of the blue too).
- Other stories I’ve heard from other Christians.
- One incident where a sense of anger descended on me, and I literally thought I was going to disintegrate. The “offence” was being a bit too chummy with God.
There’s been other things, so no matter how many excuses the atheists trot out to avoid God (which is precisely the only thing they won’t be able to do in the long run), they’re not going to have any effect.
What I do have trouble with is explaining suffering, evil, frustration, why some people are given power over others, the eternity of Hell, why an omnipotent God doesn’t seem to interfere more etc.
But I’ve got no doubt whatsoever He exists, and that He’s the Christian God.
D
Dave_B
Guest
An atheist would argue that these experiences are all in the mind. These experiences would not in themselves prove the Christian God or any of the Christian teaching.
They could be natural explanations, or could perhaps be evidence of other supernatural spiritual phenomena.
Lots of people all over the world have spiritual experiences. Many of these relate to different gods and religions.
P
Protestor
Guest
Didn’t read all posts so this may be repetitive. It seems like a double standard if I ask an atheist to consider my propositions and not think hard about his. Not just to punch wholes in his argument but to intemately wrestle with propositions is the only way I find I can convince them that it is wrong.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
Granted.
But they can argue what they like. As I said, no argument would persuade me that God doesn’t exist. When you’ve seen your own father on the night he died screaming his head off just before he disappeared, you wouldn’t let some “logical argument” persuade you “it’s all in the mind”.
The fact is that a person’s PREDISPOSITION will determine what he or she believes. I said in my original OP that I was an atheist when my father appeared in my room the night he died. It was also four days before his body was found, and I could show you two different dates on his death certificate (11 Jan 1979) and his tombstone (15 Jan 1979 - as his sisters didn’t want his mother to know he’d been dead for four days before being found).
I still remember standing there when my mother’s brother turned up four days later to tell me he’d died, counting back four days, and thinking “Then what the hell was that the other night?!!”
But my next thought, as an atheist, was “Nah! I don’t believe in those sorts of things! It must have been a bad dream or something!” And I did my best to dismiss it.
As a man thinks, so he is, regardless of the circumstances.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I wouldn’t argue that. The thread is asking of one’s own convictions and personal experiences carry a lot of weight therr. If this was being presented to convince some one else than the experiences being confined to one person would matter. But that’s another topic for another thread.
Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
D
Dave_B
Guest
Hi ThinkingSapien, I think the thread is asking if logical arguments can dissuade you for your beliefs.
Personal experience I dont think can persuade others, as its personal.
The point I was wishing to make was that “religion” and “religious experiences” can be thought of as mental events.
To present a logical argument from philosopher Theodore Drange:
- Brain events and mind events are strongly correlated.
- Mental events are impossible without a brain.
- An afterlife requires mental events without brain events
- An afterlife is impossible.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I am inclined to agree. People that have tried to persuade me have frequently shared their personal experiences. I’ve got nothing against their personal experiences, but personal experiences are not necessarily transferable experiences. So they don’t do much for me.
Okay, no objection here.
Okay.
Well, if something didn’t have a brain I don’t think I would term anything that it “experienced” as mental.
This is where my position diverges. Primarily because I’m not sure that any part of ourselves that we would identify as being the self survives death beyond the physical atoms that had once been a part of one’s body (assuming they don’t get assimilated into some other body or something). Most descriptions of an afterlife presented to my involve some one becoming a non-physical being. I’ve not been able to divorce being able to have and retain experiences from being a physical being. Nor do I find “non-physical” being to be something personally meaningful.
I don’t know that it’s impossible. Though it is not something of which I am convinced. Beyond death is a wall of ignorance. Now if I were convinced that I had died and come back I would expect to feel differently. That’s not to say I would actually need to die, but only be convinced that I had.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
I don’t think I specifically said the first mover argument proves the Christian God (I’m too lazy to go back and check what I said though), but that it proves there is a God.
I’m not a scientist, but I’ve read from people who are a lot smarter than me that a never ending series of big bangs is scientifically impossible. The only “valid” other option (assuming you deny that infinite regress is logically impossible) would be a multiuniverse system, which has no scientific backing.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
It’s “proves” that something outside the universe got the ball rolling. It doesn’t prove that this thing had a mind or emotions, or that it has ever or will ever interact with humanity. That is, it shouldn’t be used to justify religion, unless you’re comfortable with calling an unthinking, unfeeling, disinterested thing “God”.
Cyclic models are still out there- there are objections, but I’m not aware of any proof that such a thing is impossible. And on infinite regress- it seems I must accept that one way or another. In your framework, one seems to find that something had always existed. I can say “the universe” or “something else, which created the universe.”
O
oldcelt
Guest
For most of my life I believed approximately as many on this board. It was my study of the faith and history that convinced me that the God I had believed in for so long did not exist.
God can be neither proved nor disproved by man as we exist today. We simply lack the knowledge and insight…that is why I voted no on the poll.
God can be neither proved nor disproved by man as we exist today. We simply lack the knowledge and insight…that is why I voted no on the poll.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
I think by extension one could say that it proves God is interested in humanity by including us in this cause/effect universe. But, no, it shouldn’t be used to justify any religion; only that there is indeed a first mover outside of the universe.
This is true. But the universe is stuck in time and therefore a cause/effect relationship, being entirely material in nature. God isn’t, so there is no infinite regress issue.
After a google search the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem is what I think disproves a continuous universe.
P
PendingTheist
Guest
An omniscient God would know what it takes to have one believe, like He did doubting Thomas and Paul in Damascus.
I read arguments for God’s existence, whether deistic or theistic, that something can’t come from nothing. Quantum particles constantly come in and out of existence from “nothing” and apparently without a cause. The kalam cosmological argument states whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. It’s assumed the cause is an infinite uncreated deistic or theistic god although logically one can’t go beyond deism at this point. The laws of physics came into existence after the Big Bang (post-Planck-time 1x10 -43rd sec ) so they cannot be applied before this event so the first premise is without merit. Also, if you insert the word “natural” before the word “cause” you get the same answer to everything we discovered to have a cause that our ancestors thought were from gods, like, earthquakes, diseases, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, schizophrenia (demons), lightning…it’s just a matter of time before we discover the universal “cause”. Why is there something rather than nothing? Let’s go one farther and ask why is there anything including a God? Every time we look for nothing we find something, i.e. dark matter. To simply assert an eternal uncreated being, which must be more complex than anything we could ever imagine, is our creator is not being in touch with reality. If God is eternal then why can’t energy be eternal since it cannot be created or destroyed in this universe? All matter in the universe is essentially a condensed form of energy (E=mc2). Why is there something rather than nothing? Nothing is far more subtle than you might imagine, in the Bible for example, nothing would have been a vast, eternal empty universe. That would have been a void. That kind of nothing we now understand–namely empty space if you get rid of all the particles and all the radiation–that kind of nothing is actually quite complicated. In the modern universe at the quantum level it’s a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence on a timescale so short you can’t see or measure them. So there’s nothing there but actually lots of stuff is happening. You just can’t see it or measure it, and that kind of nothing is unstable. The fact that virtual particles pop in and out of empty space so fast we can’t measure it prevents it from violating the First Law of Thermodynamics which states energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another; heat, light, chemical or electrical energy.
Virtual particles can’t be measured directly, but their effects can be measured indirectly, because they affect the properties of atoms. And when they’re included in calculations and predictions we make, if we don’t include them we get the wrong answer. If we do include them, we get the right answer to nine decimal places, the best prediction in all of physics. So we know those effects are happening because we can measure them indirectly, and that’s why physicists are so confident.
All of the galaxies we now see are moving away from us faster and faster and faster. And eventually, they’ll be moving away from us faster than the speed of light. So in the far future, the rest of the universe will disappear and we’ll be alone in a vast, dark, empty universe, which is the way we thought it was originally. Eventually our stars will burn out and nothing will be left. And the simple answer of the question why is there something rather than nothing should be, “Just wait. It won’t be for long for nothing.” So be thankful for the short time we have because nothing is headed our way.
I read arguments for God’s existence, whether deistic or theistic, that something can’t come from nothing. Quantum particles constantly come in and out of existence from “nothing” and apparently without a cause. The kalam cosmological argument states whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. It’s assumed the cause is an infinite uncreated deistic or theistic god although logically one can’t go beyond deism at this point. The laws of physics came into existence after the Big Bang (post-Planck-time 1x10 -43rd sec ) so they cannot be applied before this event so the first premise is without merit. Also, if you insert the word “natural” before the word “cause” you get the same answer to everything we discovered to have a cause that our ancestors thought were from gods, like, earthquakes, diseases, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, schizophrenia (demons), lightning…it’s just a matter of time before we discover the universal “cause”. Why is there something rather than nothing? Let’s go one farther and ask why is there anything including a God? Every time we look for nothing we find something, i.e. dark matter. To simply assert an eternal uncreated being, which must be more complex than anything we could ever imagine, is our creator is not being in touch with reality. If God is eternal then why can’t energy be eternal since it cannot be created or destroyed in this universe? All matter in the universe is essentially a condensed form of energy (E=mc2). Why is there something rather than nothing? Nothing is far more subtle than you might imagine, in the Bible for example, nothing would have been a vast, eternal empty universe. That would have been a void. That kind of nothing we now understand–namely empty space if you get rid of all the particles and all the radiation–that kind of nothing is actually quite complicated. In the modern universe at the quantum level it’s a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence on a timescale so short you can’t see or measure them. So there’s nothing there but actually lots of stuff is happening. You just can’t see it or measure it, and that kind of nothing is unstable. The fact that virtual particles pop in and out of empty space so fast we can’t measure it prevents it from violating the First Law of Thermodynamics which states energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another; heat, light, chemical or electrical energy.
Virtual particles can’t be measured directly, but their effects can be measured indirectly, because they affect the properties of atoms. And when they’re included in calculations and predictions we make, if we don’t include them we get the wrong answer. If we do include them, we get the right answer to nine decimal places, the best prediction in all of physics. So we know those effects are happening because we can measure them indirectly, and that’s why physicists are so confident.
All of the galaxies we now see are moving away from us faster and faster and faster. And eventually, they’ll be moving away from us faster than the speed of light. So in the far future, the rest of the universe will disappear and we’ll be alone in a vast, dark, empty universe, which is the way we thought it was originally. Eventually our stars will burn out and nothing will be left. And the simple answer of the question why is there something rather than nothing should be, “Just wait. It won’t be for long for nothing.” So be thankful for the short time we have because nothing is headed our way.
J
judynurse
Guest
Why couldn’t God create particles, the Universe, and all else. The Bible also says He will create a “new heaven and a new earth” at the “end of time”. Who says this is the first one? Or the last? Also, from what little I know of science, the Universe is gradually slowing down, and will eventually return and become not just stable, but will reverse, eventually, millions of years in the future. If God could create it to begin with, from the quantum particles to the amoeba, and man, and earth, why couldn’t He undo it all instantly, and create a new one, more perfect? Since He only has to “think” a thing to bring it into existence, He could certainly eliminate it just as easily. And someday, He will and then create a NEW one. That’s what makes Him the “Creator”, and able to do so. He did not need to be “created” as He is the original cause, the first principle.
I’m not a scientist, nor educated in science, except for basics and what I’ve learned over 60+ years of reading and listening. I majored in Literature. But it certainly makes sense to me that there is a Creator. There is too much perfection and detail to the Universe and to the Earth for it to all be an “accident”. Just my opinion.
I’m not a scientist, nor educated in science, except for basics and what I’ve learned over 60+ years of reading and listening. I majored in Literature. But it certainly makes sense to me that there is a Creator. There is too much perfection and detail to the Universe and to the Earth for it to all be an “accident”. Just my opinion.
P
PendingTheist
Guest
You certainly assert a lot with no evidence. Yes God is possible but the burden of proof is to prove His existence not assertion He does and why not believe all the other religions’ creation stories and gods based on assertion and faith.
The Christian God has a terrible track record to creating a new heaven and earth. First He couldn’t prevent prideful Satan and his demons from dropping out of God’s presence. He created Adam perfectly but with the ability to sin and blamed him and Us despite lacking the knowledge of good and evil since Adam did eat from the tree yet. Then He flooded and killed all humans, young, old and pregnant to wipe out sin but failed. He then commanded His chosen to go around killing everything associated against Him and eventually His chosen did the same by sinning. He then had to come down to sacrifice Himself to Himself because He kept failing to wipe out sin. Animal blood sacrifice wasn’t enough so a human sacrifice was needed, which to me is immoral. What evidence is there He won’t fail in our new heaven and earth besides assertion.
If He is a perfect God shouldn’t His creation be perfect and what makes you think the next universe will be perfect?
I’m not sure what you mean by there is too much perfection? Most of the universe and most of the areas on this planet are inhabitable. The squid has better eyes than us. We have defects such as hernias, ectopic pregnancies because of poor design, we don’t have separate food and breathing tubes like a dolphin thus risk choking, our appendix is useless and can rupture…order is due to chemistry, strong/weak forces, electromagnetism and gravity. Is a snowflake design God at work or based on physical properties inherent in our universe? To say God created these properties is a hypothesis with no evidence, thus assertion and faith is needed which I do not find as a passage to truth just like you don’t belief in fairies.
The Christian God has a terrible track record to creating a new heaven and earth. First He couldn’t prevent prideful Satan and his demons from dropping out of God’s presence. He created Adam perfectly but with the ability to sin and blamed him and Us despite lacking the knowledge of good and evil since Adam did eat from the tree yet. Then He flooded and killed all humans, young, old and pregnant to wipe out sin but failed. He then commanded His chosen to go around killing everything associated against Him and eventually His chosen did the same by sinning. He then had to come down to sacrifice Himself to Himself because He kept failing to wipe out sin. Animal blood sacrifice wasn’t enough so a human sacrifice was needed, which to me is immoral. What evidence is there He won’t fail in our new heaven and earth besides assertion.
If He is a perfect God shouldn’t His creation be perfect and what makes you think the next universe will be perfect?
I’m not sure what you mean by there is too much perfection? Most of the universe and most of the areas on this planet are inhabitable. The squid has better eyes than us. We have defects such as hernias, ectopic pregnancies because of poor design, we don’t have separate food and breathing tubes like a dolphin thus risk choking, our appendix is useless and can rupture…order is due to chemistry, strong/weak forces, electromagnetism and gravity. Is a snowflake design God at work or based on physical properties inherent in our universe? To say God created these properties is a hypothesis with no evidence, thus assertion and faith is needed which I do not find as a passage to truth just like you don’t belief in fairies.
J
john330
Guest
Do you believe in a multiverse? Or infinite universes? In other universes is it possible that there are no flaws or inadequacies? What do you think about Leibniz’ assertion that this is the best of all possible worlds?
T
tonyrey
Guest
An ‘a’ is missing!
- Status