Existence of God

[tonyrey]

My beliefs are not the issue here, I willingly admit to not knowing the unknown. But I might point out that firstly there is no evidence of a backstop to the regress. Secondly, although there might logically be such a backstop, there is no evidence to suggest it’s your Creator God.

Let’s leave Homerun to decide that for himself…

 

[reggieM]

Let’s leave Homerun to decide that for himself…

Agreed. Continued posts advancing atheism are off-topic and trolling on this thread.

 

[fhansen]

Sounds Great!!! But hang on… who designed the designer…?

Yes, but the point is that a designer has to come first-before the design.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Of course, if you choose to present Pete’s arguments, you run the risk of your peers dismantling them in the same way that they have been dismantled on these forums.

could you please point to this dismantling you refer too? i would be happy to defend any of them should you wish.

Ultimately there is only one way to ‘deal’ with atheists - accept that their position is spotlessly logical and impregnable,

you cant even defend your position, how seriously can we take this assertion?

and that the only way to change their minds is to provide evidence of the existence of God. Such evidence has never been provided.

here is what i mean by differing standards of evidence. there are a great number of things that people cannot see, but do not doubt. time, gravity, the weak nuclear force, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, etc. we know of these things from their effects. in the same way we know that G-d exists from His effects, the universe, free will, causality, etc.

so the question becomes, "why does an atheist accept the existence of the unseen ‘gravity’ but not the existence of the unseen ‘G-d’?

differing standards of evidence.

Ontological and contingency arguments are just too full of holes and rely on assertions to fill the gaps.

and which ones might those be?

Alternatively you can do the sensible thing and not try to prove something that can’t be proved. Your faith is, by definition, just that - faith. Why not just leave it at that?

this is another common trait among non-theistss, a lack of understanding of the nomenclature. in this case Faith refers to the idea that G-d loves us so much that He sent His Son to suffer and die in our place, for the punishment we deserve. not to the basic existence of G-d

But I will concur with some previous posters on one thing - your teacher doesn’t seem too bright in this particular area.

now im on a roll, why did you have to stick something that i agree with on the end like that? totally ruined the sport of it

 

[hatsoff]

here is what i mean by differing standards of evidence. there are a great number of things that people cannot see, but do not doubt. time, gravity, the weak nuclear force, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, etc. we know of these things from their effects. in the same way we know that G-d exists from His effects, the universe, free will, causality, etc.

so the question becomes, "why does an atheist accept the existence of the unseen ‘gravity’ but not the existence of the unseen ‘G-d’?

differing standards of evidence.

Who says gravity “exists”? Gravity is a descriptive model of the behavior of matter–which we can see, incidentally. It is not some kind of thing which you find in the physical world.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Who says gravity “exists”? Gravity is a descriptive model of the behavior of matter–which we can see, incidentally. It is not some kind of thing which you find in the physical world.

Hahahaha… see?

Online they can freely deny anything at all.

 

[punkforchrist]

Sounds Great!!! But hang on… who designed the designer…?

In order for an explanation to be best, we don’t have to have an explanation of the explanation. If we discovered pottery on the dark side of the moon, we would be justified in concluding that some intelligent form of life designed it and left it on the moon. We wouldn’t need an explanation of who or what did it, or how they managed to leave it there, etc.

Moreover, the traditional teleological argument maintains that if something meets two conditions, we can infer that it was designed: 1) if it lacks intelligence; and 2) if it acts, always or for the most part, for an end. Notice that the universe’s Designer qualifies for (2), but not for (1). So, it’s unnecessary for the Designer to itself be designed.

I think this is relevant to the OP, since we have an instance of theist/atheist dialogue, and how such a discussion would go in real life.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Who says gravity “exists”? Gravity is a descriptive model of the behavior of matter–which we can see, incidentally. It is not some kind of thing which you find in the physical world.

so, invisible fairies are holding me to the earth? are there hooves on my shoulders? is that why i smell cinnamon and spice all the time?

 

[hatsoff]

so, invisible fairies are holding me to the earth? are there hooves on my shoulders? is that why i smell cinnamon and spice all the time?

I’m sorry you don’t think my comment was worth taking seriously. However, I can only assure you that gravity isn’t some kind of transcendent substance in the universe. It’s just a man-made math model of the behavior of matter.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m sorry you don’t think my comment was worth taking seriously. However, I can only assure you that gravity isn’t some kind of transcendent substance in the universe. It’s just a man-made math model of the behavior of matter.

The map is NOT the terrain.

Gravity is NOT the model. The model merely attempts to display the “principle” (the divine law).

“Gravity”, the word, does not refer to the model, but to the actual, the reality of the effect. The same effect to which Science refers.

 

[reggieM]

Hahahaha… see?

Online they can freely deny anything at all.

That was quite an amazing thing so see, indeed.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m sorry you don’t think my comment was worth taking seriously. However, I can only assure you that gravity isn’t some kind of transcendent substance in the universe. It’s just a man-made math model of the behavior of matter.

and the alternative to it being gravity, hence the fairies? or are you now saying that gravity doesnt exist because you cannot see it? im a little confused about how serious this can really be taken.

 

[hatsoff]

and the alternative to it being gravity, hence the fairies?

The alternative to what?

or are you now saying that gravity doesnt exist because you cannot see it?

What? No, of course not.

im a little confused about how serious this can really be taken.

Do you not see that gravity is a man-made math model? That seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Do you not see that gravity is a man-made math model? That seems pretty straightforward to me.

Did you miss this post?;

The map is NOT the terrain.

Gravity is NOT the model. The model merely attempts to display the “principle” (the divine law).

“Gravity”, the word, does not refer to the model, but to the actual, the reality of the effect. The same effect to which Science refers.

Or just not understand it?

 

[hatsoff]

The map is NOT the terrain.

Gravity is NOT the model.

I beg to differ.

If you aren’t referring to a math model when you talk about gravity, then to what are you referring? The behavior of matter?

The model merely attempts to display the “principle” (the divine law).

“Gravity”, the word, does not refer to the model, but to the actual, the reality of the effect. The same effect to which Science refers.

Gravity refers to the behavior of matter. If you’re saying that matter exists, and that it behaves certain ways as described by gravitational models, that’s great. However, if you’re saying that there is some kind of transcendental substance in the universe called “gravity,” then I will have to disagree.

 

[hatsoff]

Did you miss this post?;

I missed it, on account of it being hidden at the bottom of the previous page.

Or just not understand it?

…

 

[James_S_Saint]

However, if you’re saying that there is some kind of transcendental substance in the universe called “gravity,” then I will have to disagree.

That “transcendental substance” IS “behavior” (ie. spirit). They are the same thing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What? No, of course not.

then what do you mean in the earlier post, when you said this.

Who says gravity “exists”?

here you seem to imply that gravity does not exist.

Gravity is a descriptive model of the behavior of matter–which we can see, incidentally.

here you seem to imply that gravity is a model alone, not an actual force, but just a convenient way to describe the behavior of matter.

It is not some kind of thing which you find in the physical world.

and here you deny its existence.

i may be a little confused here but it does indeed look as if you are denying that gravity exists.

 

[hatsoff]

That “transcendental substance” IS “behavior” (ie. spirit). They are the same thing.

In that case I refer you to my original comment:

Who says gravity “exists”? Gravity is a descriptive model of the behavior of matter–which we can see, incidentally. It is not some kind of thing which you find in the physical world.

 

[James_S_Saint]

In that case I refer you to my original comment:

Who says gravity “exists”? Gravity is a descriptive model of the behavior of matter–which we can see, incidentally. It is not some kind of thing which you find in the physical world.

Geez…

Gravity is NOT the model. Gravity is the force - the energy. It is “governed” by a principle that we also call “Gravity” or the “principle of gravity”. It is merely expressed as a formula so as to be able to measure it.

If it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t be able to measure it.