Evidence that God Exists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ammonius_Saccus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ammonius_Saccus said:
A if B
A
Therefore B

You really don’t see a problem with this logic?
Click to expand...
sure. but that’s not my argument…

this is my argument:

if there is moral responsibility, then there is free will;
there is moral responsibility;
ergo there is free will.

modus ponens. QED.

(“iff” means “if and only if”).
 
There can be no evidence of the existence of God.

God, being all-powerful, has no rational way of “revealing” His existence. If an all-powerful being were to reveal His existence, that would eliminate “free-will”; think about it.
 
john_doran said:
sure. but that’s not my argument…

this is my argument:

if there is moral responsibility, then there is free will;
there is moral responsibility;
ergo there is free will.

modus ponens. QED.

(“iff” means “if and only if”).
Click to expand...
How do you know there is actually moral responsibility?
 
Joseph_Mary said:
There can be no evidence of the existence of God.

God, being all-powerful, has no rational way of “revealing” His existence. If an all-powerful being were to reveal His existence, that would eliminate “free-will”; think about it.
Click to expand...
So why believe God actually exists?
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
They are two different types of mystery. The Trinity is a mystery not just because there is not yet enough evidence, but because it cannot be explained how it does not violate basic principles of logic.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, you limited God to addition a while back…is 111 not equal to 1? Is that not a logistic, mathematic principle? Is logic solely addition?
You claim the Trinity is a mystery, and therefore invalid, because there is not enough evidence to prove it exists–when that same desire for the “evidence” you seek is absent for the explination of the creation of the universe. The fact that the universe exists is not invalid–and I’m sure we agree on that.
Evidence, is evidence, is evidence. How can you say there are different types of evidence?
Ammonius_Saccus said:
Personal experience has been addressed earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...
Personal experience was a point I was making, but my focus was more on the fact that belief is optional. Even if someone says, “the sky is blue,” and they are obviously correct, someone else might argue that it’s purple. If you don’t want to believe something, you won’t.
Ammonius_Saccus said:
Which Buddist countries are talking about? Which Buddist are forced into their religion?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t 100% about Buddism being a manditory religion, and I humbly stand corrected.
In the first 150-200(ish) posts I read, you seem to cling to the idea of: “why should one believe personal accounts of the Christian God when Muslims and Buddists (ect, ect.) claim the same thing involving their own supernatural idols?” A definite item that separates Christians from other religions is visible, real intervention in lives–and there is supporting proof.
As Buddism IS a major religion in the East (multiple countries in Asia have a Buddist turnout of over 90%), it is not surprising that the results gained directly from prayer to God cannot be experienced first-hand, as Christians are a definite minority. Compare this to America, and we find mere 1% of the population claims to be Buddist. If you argue that this is due to the wide variety of religions in America, which is never-the-less 80% Christian, you are only hindering your point.
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
OK. What is time at the singularity?
Click to expand...
??? it’s zero.
Ammonius Saccus:
In fact, what is time? You should write a book about this. Brian Greene wrote a bestseller that was in part about how we don’t know what time is. Since you do know, your book should sell way more copies. (I hope this doesn’t sound rude.)
Click to expand...
i think both of his books were bestsellers. and i’ve read both of them. I prefer Smolin’s stuff.

but whatever. your reasoning here is what’s known as a red herring - time at the initial singularity can be described without problem: it is the same as time now. the difficulty arises only when we try to understand the temporal laws that prevailed during the Planck era. which, again, in no way changes the fact that there was a first moment of time…
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
So why believe God actually exists?
Click to expand...
Why believe He doesn’t?

It’s all faith…IRRATIONAL FAITH.

To either believe or not believe in the infinite is IRRATIONAL, as infinities (God, or His non-existence) are, in themselves, “irrational”.

Arguing over the existence of God is one of the dumbest activities known to man…on both sides.
 
Joseph_Mary said:
Why believe He doesn’t?

It’s all faith…IRRATIONAL FAITH.

To either believe or not believe in the infinite is IRRATIONAL, as infinities (God, or His non-existence) are, in themselves, “irrational”.

Arguing over the existence of God is one of the dumbest activities known to man…on both sides.
Click to expand...
Why take the agnostic position and say you don’t know? That is what I do.
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
Why [not?] take the agnostic position and say you don’t know? That is what I do.
Click to expand...
We are all “agnostics”.

I’m a DEVOUT FAITHFUL Catholic, but I don’t claim to “know”.

I BELIEVE - I have FAITH.

Do I “know”?

Of course not. Listen to the beginning of even the Nicene Creed:

“I believe…”
 
Joseph_Mary said:
We are all “agnostics”.

I’m a DEVOUT FAITHFUL Catholic, but I don’t claim to “know”.

I BELIEVE - I have FAITH.

Do I “know”?

Of course not. Listen to the beginning of even the Nicene Creed:

“I believe…”
Click to expand...
But why believe in the Catholic view? Why not believe that there are numerous possibilities?
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
But why believe? Why not believe that there are numerous possibilities?
Click to expand...
Because I have irrationally come down on the side of the Catholic Church.

Yes, I admit that my decision is “irrational”.

I could never explain it, my decision makes no sense, especially given my previous beliefs, but it simply “is”.

Why am I a Catholic today and an atheist in the past? No good reason…
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
How do you know there is actually moral responsibility?
Click to expand...
Maybe for you to understand this, responsibility is not the best term to use. What about moral value?
Dogs cannot know when they are doing right, as neither can fish, plankton, televisions, or monkeys.
We are human; we are set apart from the rest of nature. Being the most sophisticated beings on Earth, we are given the ‘responsiblity’ (or instilled with the ‘value’–with the seed–so to speak) of moral.

If you don’t believe this, A.S., let me ask you a question:
Do you sincerely think you could stab a baby to death, and feel no regret?
 
Freebird said:
Maybe for you to understand this, responsibility is not the best term to use. What about moral value?
Dogs cannot know when they are doing right, as neither can fish, plankton, televisions, or monkeys.
We are human; we are set apart from the rest of nature. Being the most sophisticated beings on Earth, we are given the ‘responsiblity’ (or instilled with the ‘value’–with the seed–so to speak) of moral.

If you don’t believe this, A.S., let me ask you a question:
Do you sincerely think you could stab a baby to death, and feel no regret?
Click to expand...
This can be explained by evolution. See for the example the work of Robert Trivers or this popular science book:

amazon.com/Origins-Virtue-Instincts-Evolution-Cooperation/dp/0140264450/ref=ed_oe_p/103-5371012-0595008
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
And what about the non-singularity models, such as Hawking’s?
Click to expand...
what about them?

the hartle-hawking model avoids the initial singularity only by positing the reification of imaginary time, which is about as meaningful to me as chomsky’s “colorless green ideas sleep furiously”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top