Proving God Exists

[Rainier22]

Insults have no place in a rational discussion. None whatsoever.

But you don’t say anything when your own guy does it. Beautiful, beautiful bias. You didn’t say anything when questions were dodged. You didn’t say anything when fallacies were being used. As far as I’m concerned, you guys had your chance for rationality. Dodging questions, using fallacies, false premises, putting words in my mouth - yea. I really don’t care if you feel like someone was insulted with the behavior here. The fact of the matter is that offensive material is only offensive if one decides to be offended by it.

In a debate, the balls of those here would have been torn off. I think I’ve been pretty forgiving.

 

[Valentin]

hi Rainier,
sorry if you feel offended. please, understand us. we are human being. we have our doubts, we have many doubts. at least i have a lot. and you are coming with your questions. you have one big advantage - the whole materialistic, visible, easy explainable world is with you. what we have - our soul, our believes and the mighty God behind our back.
i say, it is not easy, because we expect to harvets in our next life.
do you understand that ?!
so, you need to make a step, than will find your answers, but you understand that that step will make you out of many things -
easy life, not much concerns, responsibility of your deeds to you only, self confidence and so on.
i, f.e., am at the moment 1000 km away from my home. instead of making " good life " around, i stay with my Bible and try to find some answers for myself. " good guys " rushing around and " take as much as possible from the life ". for me such behaviour is a sin, not because if i do something and if my wife understands she will be very much offended. but because my God is forgeting me that.
here is the point - if i do not believe to God, i do whatever i want and my responsibility is to myself. if i do believe - i keep his Decalog and every time judge my steps as per that. am i crazy to do this ? no, i am not. people around me also say - no, he is not crazy. i am running good business, that can’t be run by crazy people.
so, you better listen what you have heard in the forum - first step is to put off your self confidence for a while and spend one hour in front of the Holly Communion. just you and God ! do not tell to anybody. after that you dress again with your previous life and compare…
good luck and God bless you !

 

[joeybaggz]

Once again, circular reasoning. Truth, according to you, is stuff that comes from God. Therefore, God is true because God says so, and God’s word is true because God says so, and God’s word is true because God says so, and God’s word is true because God said so…

Don’t you love this. Circular reasoning says the child. As if his “reasoning” on this thread has been anything more than, “my words are true because I say they are true, and therefore my words are true because I say they are true so my words are true because I say they are…”

Actually, I’m not being fair, it should read, my words are true because Dawkins says they are true, and therefore my words are true because Hitchens says they are true, and since I’m plagarizing Hitches, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, my words are true, and you are all lightweights and not deserving of my inestimable superior presence because you will not believe that my words are true … (although they really aren’t my words)

Sorry Valentin, I know you are trying to charitable to this “infant terrible’” but throughtout his last few posts he ahs shown his petulant, arrogant, condescending side. In his earlier posts he stated that reason demands evidence, but when John Doran requested evidence, Ranier ridiculed him. And that’s just one example of his arrogance. Numerous posters, in an effort to engage in a reasoned dialogue, have agreed with his contention that God is not provable according to his standards and conditions, and he still continues to insinuate and insult. It is obvious that Ranier’s only position in coming on this site is, agree with my incredibly magnificent arguments and I will grant you my benediction. However, disagree and I will belittle and heap you with my scorn. Let him go back to his “circle jerk” world of atheist posters and wish him well. You say he is seeking and searching for the truth. I suggest that you read his posts seriously and you’ll see that that is the farthest thing from his mind. Like all angry atheists, he is a petulant child throwing a tantrum because we will not timidly bow to his self righteous diatribes.

They say there are no atheists in foxholes. I think few people past the age of 70 in a funeral home qualify either. Here’s a prayer that one day Ranier will look beyond his own hubris, and see something beyond intellectual self-importance. And if he doesn’t want to, remember, the only person you can hear God speak to is yourself. He’s not your responsibility, and if I were to be uncharitable, I’d say screw … naaah that’s not Christian…

 

[BlaineTog]

But you don’t say anything when your own guy does it.

I didn’t bother reading what “my own guy” said. I have a limited amount of time to spend on these forums and I’d rather not spend it constantly policing people I’m not even really conversing with.

The fact of the matter is that offensive material is only offensive if one decides to be offended by it.

Yet it is as illogical and as out-of-place regardless.

In a debate, the balls of those here would have been torn off. I think I’ve been pretty forgiving.

Structured debates are, frankly, BS. They’re about winning, not about discovering the truth.

 

[Super_Grover]

Super Grover

I really don’t know how to address your story. It’s awesomely interesting, but overall just an experience of the same value of those converts to every other religion. Every time someone here says they have had the experience I imagine a Hindu coming in here and saying “me too!” It’s of the same credibility as Edgar Cayce or reports of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. “What one can claim with their own credulity can be dismissed equally so without demonstration.” All we have to support it is that you’ve changed, and attributing that change to an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent deity is quite a stretch.

As for you not even peering over your writings, I have to wonder why you’re so against questioning this experience. I mean, the automatic knowing that there is a God seems like something to investigate! It’s obviously easily explainable by other means, so the idea of not investigating those other means seems extremely biased.

Well, you said you wanted to know more about it. You should not rely on someone else’s experience. Of course you can dismiss it. What I’m trying to drive home to you is that you do not sound like someone who is going to become convinced through rational argument. But there is an understanding that many people view as transcending the rational. Not “irrational” (we can all look back on times in our lives where we were irrational and can recognize it), but extra rational. If you are truly interested in how finite minds come to believe in the Infinite, you need to research it. It’s not my job to convince you, just to let you know that there might be an avenue to such understanding, either through subtle or profound extra rational experience. Study up on this if you are so interested. Yeah, Hindus would say something like that too. There is much to distinguish Hindu mysticism from Christianity and I think I alluded to that somewhat, but Hindu mystics do reach altered states of consciousness to attain an experience of something that is beyond the merely rational. If that is proof to you that this is bunk, so be it. If you’ve determined that such things are not worth reading about, so be it. But it doesn’t make sense to me that you would fail to examine this at least, apparently having become fairly convinced that there is no “rational” route to belief in an Infinite God.

Don’t be offended by this admittedly imperfect analogy, but try to think of it like trying to convince a baby that it is a separate and distinct entity from its surroundings, or convince it of object permanence. You can’t. These are developmental stages that the baby reaches, and that you cannot make it reach. The baby’s inability to appreciate that a ball does not pop out of existence when it passes out of sight is not a defect of the person trying to explain the ball, or a defect of the ball itself, or even a defect of the baby. A baby cannot really understand object permanence until it has object permanence. You will not understand faith until you have faith. When it happens, it happens. That’s aggravating to hear, and sounds circular and b.s. to you, I know. It sounded the same to me before.

I also think you misunderstand my not indulging in an overweening examination of this experience. I don’t believe the experience was sent as an end in itself for the purpose of dissection by me. Someday I’ll do it, I just haven’t gotten around to it yet because I have more important things to do.

Don’t forget to try the prayer “experiment.” So what if you feel stupid doing it. You’d be more stupid not to try it because, from your own vantage point, you’ve got nothing to lose.

Don’t take my word for it, or anyone else’s. But try to have at least enough humility, at least temporarily for the purpose of an intellectual exercise, to entertain that other people may be describing something valid. I don’t think that your God is not going to make it easy for you, so have fun on the way.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Once again, circular reasoning. Truth, according to you, is stuff that comes from God. Therefore, God is true because God says so, and God’s word is true because God says so, and God’s word is true because God says so, and God’s word is true because God said so…

Do you really not know why you think certain things are true?

Certain things are true because they are beautiful and useful, or anti-beautiful and negatively useful (which is just another variety of “useful”). I have stated this above, which you apparently are incapable of reading, or at least understanding.

The “positively” true things are from God as God.
The “negatively” true things are from some “being(s)” using those things from God disorderedly.

What does “truth” look like to you?
Do YOU really know why you think certain things are true? If so, how?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Once again, circular reasoning. Truth, according to you, is stuff that comes from God. Therefore, God is true because God says so, and God’s word is true because God says so, and God’s word is true because God says so, and God’s word is true because God said so…

Now, if you understood what “God” means, you’d see that if God (qua God) says ANYTHING, that whatever He said MUST be believed.

Your basic problem is that you don’t see God as God but as a god. Those little “g” gods CERTAINLY shouldn’t be trusted to speak truth, which is where you are PERFECTLY CORRECT!

But, because you refuse, out of shear laziness (most likely, though darker motives are certainly not out of the question), to do what you would need to do to understand how it is that God is not a god, you allow yourself an excuse to be able to claim God is just a god and not God.

Since you won’t do the test, you can rightfully claim ignorance, and ignorance, to you, is a perfectly valid excuse to do as you have been doing, namely, not making proper distinctions and drawing incorrect conclusions based on those non-distinctions.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I was invited to this forum to share conversations with some “heavy hitters” here for theism. The heavy hitters have never showed up, and the discussion has been rudimentary at best with most of you. I really see desire to learn or understand here whatsoever and therefore no reason for me to stay. Perhaps you have those that can give a solid argument, but so far it’s been nothing. It’s been standard fundamentalist dodging of questions and fallacies.

I’ll check to see if any of those who can give arguments to why they believe show up, but otherwise I’m going to get out of here. I’m extremely disappointed. Before you think it’s just me looking down at you again, perhaps you should question why I would when no one will even answer why things are true.

I’ve answered every question, several times, that you’ve asked.

You can’t possibly look down at us, as you’re so far below us, flailing about in your diaper, that you’re spittle-tinged babbling is barely audible, though your occassional crying and whining is quite loud enough, thank you very much.

Best to you in your “debates” with those back in your usual creche.

 

[Rainier22]

Super Grover, I’m definitely not going to rule out your experience. I’ve meditated enough to have supernatural experiences of my own, but again that doesn’t mean yours is fake. I’d like to know details about the experience, so perhaps I can try to duplicate it or at least find others who have (not here obviously since that wouldn’t be blind). I think lots of people have probably had your experience.

I understand you don’t believe God-belief can ever be explained through any sort of rationality. The fact that such a deity would purposely hide itself from people like me completely screws up that whole all-loving god idea though.

I understand that this is something completely new to you and probably would be new to me as well. However, if you were exposed to something, it’s strange that you can not describe anything you were exposed to. The ontological argument suggests that for me to know of something like God, I have to be exposed to the idea. I understand that. However, you have the idea, but it is so completely incompatible with the very basis of how we manipulate our environment. It’s so contradictory to everything said about God that I would probably think I was hallucinating before believing God was talking to me.

I’m going to try to explain this ontological argument thing better… Things almost surely exist in the universe without us knowing about them - beyond our senses. God is supposedly one of those things. Let’s say God is an extra dimension that we can’t perceive. It’s a level of existence we can’t see. If I came back describing to you an extra dimension in a way never before thought of, you’d know I saw it. If you came to me describing God in a way different from those supernatural experiences similar to that of everyone from those in contact with aliens to drug addicts, then I would know better.

It comes down to whether or not your experience is verifiable or falsifiable. Evidence suggests that it is one among millions of “supernatural” events each year from a variety of things. I can meditate to the point you are talking about, but if I come back telling you the tooth fairy started talking to me, and that I was made aware of the tooth fairy’s existence, then you would probably think I was crazy. When you do the same thing with a different idea of the same credibility, it’s hard to think this one is any different from the millions of others. Among those millions of others are revelations that Christianity is false teaching.

You keep saying “extra-rational,” and I wonder if you could describe this better. Perhaps it is that thing you didn’t know of before that you could describe proving you experienced it, ya know?

As for it being irrational to not even try this hour of prayer, I strongly disagree. I don’t think there is any reason to do it since the experience can come from thousands of different things apparently. I could do it tonight and contact God, and tomorrow night contact Allah. The night after that I could have a 3 way prayer with aliens, Brahman, and the ghost of Christopher Columbus. The only real argument for it is Pascal’s Wager it seems, and I’m pretty well describing why that doesn’t work. How do I know this deity is good? How do I know the Christian one is correct as you describe? The reason to pray to this one specific God seems like a shot in the dark assuming any of the Gods or supernatural events are real - which no evidence has suggested they are whatsoever.

I do plan on trying it though as sincerely as I can. If anything else, I can say I tried.

Going to bed now - gotta get up at 2am.

 

[OTavern]

I hope in your case that your blatant dishonesty is curable and that this “hell” place isn’t real for your sake. Evidence is reason for believing. That’s what we call a reason to believe! Please - tell me another “reason to believe” that isn’t evidence! I’d love to hear this one!

If I sound sarcastic and “speaking down to,” it’s because I am. This is what blatant dishonesty deserves.

I don’t mind being spoken down to; falling from your height will surely take a more serious toll on your ego than falling from the low place that I am presently being relegated to by you.

JoeyBaggz did an admirable piece of work distinguishing “reason for believing” from “evidence” in Post 128.

In short, we frequently believe things – for example – on the authority of those we trust, without evidence. When you watch the weather, do you always go out and gather your own evidence to confirm the reports, or do you “trust” and “believe” without evidence that for the most part meteorologists know “their stuff” and forecast the weather quite accurately? Does this not count as an example of a “reason to believe” without actual evidence? Or, perhaps, do you count the historical accuracy of meteorologists as being the actual “evidence” for your belief that no rain will occur tomorrow?

Which is it? Do you fully discount weather forecasting by “third parties” as hearsay or do you count this as a piece of “evidence” supporting your belief? By your account, as one who accepts only on evidence, you should still need to substantiate the forecast with evidence in order to actually “believe” it to be true, or you are in grave danger of committing a logically fallacy – appeal to authority.

But do you, in fact, actually substantiate the forecast? Or do you, in practice, short circuit the process, and trust or “have faith?” My bet would be the latter, in which case you are the one being intellectually dishonest and not following your own “rules” in this game you call “reason to believe.”

You have faith in God in spite of having absolutely no evidence for such a thing. To me, it’s similar to believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the tooth fairy in that regard. That’s faith.

Let’s be clear about this one, too. Who is being dishonest? Are these two beliefs really on a par? The ordered functioning of the universe and the apparent orientation of our solar system towards the evolution and maintenance of life on Earth is a “reason for believing” that there could be an intelligent planner or designer behind it all. The mere fact that the universe is intelligible is a “reason for believing” there could be intelligence involved in its design. That in itself is a far greater reason for believing in God, than for believing in the existence of a patently imaginary creature, such as the flying spaghetti monster, whose very concept can be traced to mere imaginary fiction. If you don’t admit a vast difference in the quality and substance of these two beliefs, then it is abundantly clear who is engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

Alright, this seems worth addressing. If God reveals things to people like suggested, why then can’t you reveal the information to others? If you now have the information, why can’t you share it? If I reveal something to you, then you can share it.

Perhaps it is a matter of “capacity.” Knowing God is not like seeing a colour. The mere possession of normal functioning “eyes” lets you observe colour in much the same way as anyone else. Knowing God may be a matter of “allowing your being” to be “tuned” to God. In other words, perhaps your 'being" must be adjusted by God in order to become attuned to His presence. This “trusting” in God to do so is precisely what “faith” is. It is not belief without evidence as you claim, but trusting in the “Other” by Whom we have existence.

You want a reason to believe that trust in God is critical, here it is: Did you bring yourself into existence? I didn’t think so. Why, then, should you trust yourself to have complete control over determining what is and isn’t true when you had absolutely nothing to do with bringing yourself into being and know absolutely nothing about the nature of your conscious existence. What exactly are “you?” What exactly is the nature of the “you” that is aware of your own existence? You don’t know.

However, if “Someone” brought you into being, it would seem to me that would be one good reason for finding out why, and a good reason for not dismissing the whole issue tritely.

 

[OTavern]

You really, really, really need to understand that there is no faith here. By faith I mean believing with lack of or in spite of evidence. If you believe otherwise, then please tell me where I’m giving faith.

It is clear from joeybaggz’s post that, if you are a normal person, you act on faith all the time. Faith in the people around you, that they are who and what they pretend to be; faith in your own ability to decode the world around you accurately; faith that the gadgets in your life and the people operating those gadgets are going to function as they are supposed to, etc. Even by not following up on all of these “leaps of faith” you make each day by demanding full evidentiary disclosure, you are showing trust in the people, gadgets and workings of the universe around you. You show faith all the time. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that much.

The real question is: “Who do you trust?”
Do you trust yourself? Your senses? The authorities of science? The media?

Or…

Do you trust that whoever or whatever had the intelligence, power, will and concern to bring you into existence also has the capacity to guide you while you do exist?

 

[Super_Grover]

When it comes to logic, one would be a fool to brashly disregard Aquinas. Brilliant people have devoted their lives to Aquinas’ writings because they are so in awe of his intellect.

I have doubts that logic alone can help the hardened, but if anyone is intrigued by any of these ideas, maybe something will take hold. Here is a page with a great set of links regarding Thomistic logic, some of which has been addressed on this thread already.
aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html

Here is an interesting one called Thomas Aquinas and Big Bang Cosmology: www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/carroll.htm

I have to say that this has been interesting. One piece that I read among these links says that for those from whom intuition issues forth a belief in God from deep in our intellect, it can seem like a gift, and then it can fade away. But the writer says that if cultivated, we can also come back to a point of understanding God (in whom we already believe) from the perspective of reason alone. Hmmm.

But I’m not sure even Aquinas expected his logic to convince the hardened, as he is the person who famously said, that “to one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

But hey, we’re trying anyway.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

** To Ranier 22

I am not claiming to be a heavy hitter as you say, but I am curious. I posted this quoted section a while back which no one has addressed. Could you please give me an explanation why this is incorrect thinking on my part?

**

I jump in, admitting that I have read only the first post and none other. One thing I like to point out requires simple logic. Look at the watch on your wrist. Look at the most complex machine ever created by man. Could these have just happened. Logic says no. Now look at man. Man can reproduce himself, grow in his mothers womb, communicate with other men, if broken, (as in a fracture or laceration) heal himself, can create machines that can fly, go to the moon and beyond, can reason, can know the abstract and understand their concepts, such as beauty, goodness, etc. All this logically tells me that if a mere mechanical machine could not just happen, but has to be created by man, and can do none of the things that man can do, then man himself would have to have been created by a higher power. That higher power is God.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

This next post of yours, I have highlighted the sections that I find of interest. and ask that you comment upon.

Super Grover, I’m definitely not going to rule out your experience. I’ve meditated enough to have supernatural experiences of my own, but again that doesn’t mean yours is fake.

How can you have supernatural experiences, if you do not believe in the supernatural? God is a (the) supernatural, uncreated being from which all creation comes. How can **truth **exist without having a source. How can ***justice ***exist without having a source? How can beauty exist without having a source? Note that each word I used, truth, justice, beauty, is an immaterial, abstract concept. How can it exist, or how can you understand these immaterial, abstract concepts, unless there was something in you, Ranier, that was immaterial and rational. Immateriality and rationality have to have a source. They are not “just are”. How do you explain this?

I understand you don’t believe God-belief can ever be explained through any sort of rationality. The fact that such a deity would purposely hide itself from people like me completely screws up that whole all-loving god idea though.

God is not hiding himself from you. He is reflected all around you. You simply do not see, or refuse to see.

The reason to pray to this one specific God seems like a shot in the dark assuming any of the Gods or supernatural events are real - which no evidence has suggested they are whatsoever.

I see you rely on logic very much. While I am definitely no Thomas Aquinas, from what I see you bring up too many variables and points that are just non existent to think through logically. Don’t worry about other dimensions, extra-terrestrials, etc. Looking at places like this as the source of God, is a red herring, all it does will keep you from the issue at hand. Just ask yourself, with all that is, where did it come from? It had to have a source. Did it just happen? No it did not just happen. The question is how and why did it happen? In that answer you will find God

I do plan on trying it though as sincerely as I can. If anything else, I can say I tried.

I too will pray with you and for you. Most especially that you do not end up as will your monicor. Ranier, will eventually self destruct.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[john_doran]

If posts continue to be this ridiculous, I’m just going to leave. I’m trying to explain my stance, and you’re just being retarded about it. Just answer the question. You guys are worst than Bill Clinton at a trial!

what’s ridiculous about asking you to define your terms?

and i don’t think “explain” means what you think it means.

Rainier22:

what is true? and why do you think it’s true?

what does this even mean? are you asking for a list of propositions that i believe are true? or are you asking for me to explain what i think makes propositions true when they are, in fact, true?

this proposition is true: “~(A&~A)”. and it’s true because it accurately describes the world.

this proposition is true: □(~(A&~A). and it’s true because there is no possible world in which it is false.

is general relativity true? i don’t know, and neither do you. the evidence for it is as good as we get for theories, but it’s not perfect. for one thing, it’s incompatible with quantum field theory, which is also profoundly successful in its predictive abilities as a theory.

is quantum field theory true? i don’t know that, either.

but what’s the point of trotting out a litany of beliefs like this? the questions that need to be addressed before productive conversation can begin about these issues are the questions i put to you before, and which you summarily dismissed as “retarded”.

take this quote of yours, for example:

Rainier22:

I don’t think you understand why we have science. We constantly test our beliefs to make sure they are correct, and when they’re wrong, of course we change them. Everything is questionable - absolutely everything. What can be sustained by the evidence though?

this (mis)describes the way science progresses. but that’s not the ony kind of knowledge we have.

for example, mathematical knowledge does not proceed this way: we don’t go out measuring the sides of thousands and thousands of right-angle triangles in an attempt to confirm the pythagorean theorem. and no matter how many even numbers can be shown to be the sum of two primes by simply adding them up, that will never constitute a proof of golbach’s conjecture.

because mathematical truths are necessarily true, and there is no necessity that can be discovered by science, since everything in the empirical world is contingent.

in the same way, much of what counts as philosophy deals with necessary truths: things which cannot not be true/false, and which are therefore not even in the same category as the scientific propositions that are subject to the “scientific method”, so-called.

but whatever…ball’s in your court.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I’ve answered every question, several times, that you’ve asked.

You can’t possibly look down at us, as you’re so far below us, flailing about in your diaper, that you’re spittle-tinged babbling is barely audible, though your occassional crying and whining is quite loud enough, thank you very much.

Best to you in your “debates” with those back in your usual creche.

Right. Well, that was less than charitable of me, n’est-ce pas!?

That rather bothersome, bothersome to me and annoying (or amusing) to others, habit of mine of returning emotionality with like emotionality seems to have gotten between me and my being more “pastoral” in my, uh, presentation.

I shall try to be a bit less “reciprocating” in my responses in future.

I would like it known, though, that the response I gave was meant more to be “clever” than to be hurtful. That’s a very weak excuse, in fact no excuse at all, and is more of an example of my self-annoying lack of humility and how this particular silly-person (moi) egotistically self-justifies being an occassional idiot in public.

So, “lumps” are due me, and if I’ve managed to “annoy away” anyone from contributing to this venue I’ve done precisely what I really hate other people doing. My doing things I hate having done is NOT going to contribute to MY credibility, and that is fair treatment of me.

Here’s hoping that I get some brains and not do damage to myself, and/or scandalize the CAF, which might drive others from a place where information much needed for their salvation is available.

Mea culpa just doesn’t seem to quite do it for me. But my increased motivation to not be a fool might make for better behavior on my part in the future.

Sorry for my being a derriere-trou.

 

[Rainier22]

Sorry about missing your post Deacon.

To Ranier 22
How can you have supernatural experiences, if you do not believe in the supernatural?

Good question. I should have said “supernatural” like that. It seemed supernatural at the time. I do not believe it was supernatural.

God is a (the) supernatural, uncreated being from which all creation comes. How can **truth **exist without having a source. How can ***justice ***exist without having a source? How can beauty exist without having a source? Note that each word I used, truth, justice, beauty, is an immaterial, abstract concept. How can it exist, or how can you understand these immaterial, abstract concepts, unless there was something in you, Ranier, that was immaterial and rational. Immateriality and rationality have to have a source. They are not “just are”. How do you explain this?

I don’t understand why a truth needs to have a source unless you mean the source of knowing a truth. A truth like 2+2=4 doesn’t need a source. In our universe, it works every time. Try it. It will add up to 4 every time. It’s an observation of how things work. Are you talking about a source of how things work?

Social justice is explained by it’s name. It’s a social thing developed by societies. Justice seems to be a combination of morality (brought on by evolution) with that society. I’d say that’s probably why you find justice is such a subjective thing.

Identifying physical beauty, as in humans, is also an evolutionary trait used for identify the best genes. It’s subjective and objective at the same time. While people may disagree which actresses are the most beautiful, they can generally agree that Rosanne is not one of them. When you go into landscapes, astronomy, and all sorts of other stuff, I am less sure of why we see things as “beautiful” and “ugly.” Semantics comes in because “beautiful” is often used interchangeably with “dominant” or “massive” like with mountain ranges and oceans. No ocean is beautiful. No pile of small rocks is beautiful. However, place in the idea that the ocean is a massive and dominant place or that the rocks are 3 miles above you, and it becomes beautiful. I don’t really know on that one. Aesthetics really isn’t my forte.

However, you have to understand I don’t need to be able to explain where these things come from. The theist needs to present reason to believe (evidence) that these things come from a omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving entity that created the universe. I rest quite comfortably on “I don’t know.”

God is not hiding himself from you. He is reflected all around you. You simply do not see, or refuse to see.

My signature on my forum says this:

“I’ve created matter, and I’ve intricately placed each piece of matter into millions of spiral arrangements each billions upon billions of miles wide. Now, I will throw them at each other at millions of mph!!”

• God, [edited]

One of the best refutations of the argument from design is birth defects in my opinion. Why would a loving God do this to someone? This is what God did?

[Edited]

If God did exist, I’d still see no reason to worship him if he’s this ruthless of a jerk.

I see you rely on logic very much. While I am definitely no Thomas Aquinas, from what I see you bring up too many variables and points that are just non existent to think through logically. Don’t worry about other dimensions, extra-terrestrials, etc. Looking at places like this as the source of God, is a red herring, all it does will keep you from the issue at hand. Just ask yourself, with all that is, where did it come from? It had to have a source. Did it just happen? No it did not just happen. The question is how and why did it happen? In that answer you will find God

Well, saying it just happened implies time has always existed, so I doubt this just happened since time and space are essentially the same thing. I don’t know whether or not there is an origin. There is no answer that will satisfy anyone if you ask me. What happened before the big bang? Why did the singularity expand? I can search all day through mountains of peer reviewed journals, but I will never once find God in there. You can look in every science there is, but you will not find the supernatural as an answer. There really is no reason to believe it’s an answer unless someone presents that reason. The burden of proof is on the theist to show evidence of all this God - to show evidence of design or objective morality.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I don’t understand why a truth needs to have a source unless you mean the source of knowing a truth. A truth like 2+2=4 doesn’t need a source. In our universe, it works every time. Try it. It will add up to 4 every time. It’s an observation of how things work. Are you talking about a source of how things work?

You don’t care WHY it works. Just that it does work. Why do you believe that it would always continue to work? Since you have no reason that it DOES work, other than that it HAS worked, is there always a slight sense that it might NOT work in your mind?

If there is, which there must be as the possibility is ALWAYS there that 2+2=4 might not work due to your reasoning as to why it does work now, you possess an “anxiety” that I don’t.

Your “anxiety” that all things are “provisional” is why non-atheists choose to be so.

…

No ocean is beautiful. No pile of small rocks is beautiful. However, place in the idea that the ocean is a massive and dominant place or that the rocks are 3 miles above you, and it becomes beautiful. I don’t really know on that one. Aesthetics really isn’t my forte.

This explains quite a lot indeed!

However, you have to understand I don’t need to be able to explain where these things come from. The theist needs to present reason to believe (evidence) that these things come from a omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving entity that created the universe. I rest quite comfortably on “I don’t know.”

You rest comfortably in your anxiety.

We rest uncomfortably in our peace.

What do you mean by “present reason”? Is that a typo?

We don’t need to present reasons to believe in God TO anyone! We also don’t need to present our **reasoning **to anyone who won’t reason as we do.

You rest “comfortably” in the anxiety of the unfoundedness of your “I don’t know”, because you’re comfortable with being lazy. You talk about things you won’t work to understand, then complain that the things you talk about are not understandable (and irrational and therefore non-existant).

Fascinating “logic”!

My signature on my forum says this:

“I’ve created matter, and I’ve intricately placed each piece of matter into millions of spiral arrangements each billions upon billions of miles wide. Now, I will throw them at each other at millions of mph!!”

• God, [edited]

I agree with you that this IS the way you see God, and am glad to see you admit to it! Could you see how this might be just a tad annoying to those who know that what you call “God” is only YOUR god’s evil imposter posed to you as “God”, whom you mistake for the real God?

…

One of the best refutations of the argument from design is birth defects in my opinion. Why would a loving God do this to someone? This is what God did?

That your god has convinced you that his interposed “God”-mask is the real (and our) God allows you to make the statements you do in PERECT JUSTIFICATION!

You are absolutely right, given that you actually believe your god in his deception!

The problem is that we are talking about two different things, which you refuse to see AS two different things, which creates the obvious absurdities that we see in each other.

Convincing you that your god exists as the demon that he is, who makes it justifiably impossible for you to believe in God qua God (God as the real God He is) is probably impossible.

You certainly have my prayers in dealing with your terrible condition. This is a great example of the real insidiousness of the power of the demons! Your demon has hijacked the righteous motives from natural law of a well meaning person, and twisted them into attacking a straw-man, with the effect of being a force to scandalize others toward a demeaned opinion of the real God.

Very clever indeed. Here’s hoping your demon slips, by the power of God’s grace alone no doubt, and the “man behind the curtain” is revealed to you.

You have my prayers.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Sorry about missing your post Deacon.

I note you still have not responded to post # 72, which I had in the beginning of my response. Just an observation

I don’t understand why a truth needs to have a source unless you mean the source of knowing a truth Are you talking about a source of how things work?

Social justice is explained by it’s name. It’s a social thing developed by societies. Justice seems to be a combination of morality (brought on by evolution) with that society. I’d say that’s probably why you find justice is such a subjective thing.

Identifying physical beauty, as in humans, is also an evolutionary trait used for identify the best genes. It’s subjective and objective at the same time. While people may

You miss the point. Metaphysically, it is impossible for a person to function in a mode or manner in which he or she does not exist.
To understand these abstract concepts, there must be something immaterial about you in order to do so. Show me justice. Show me honesty, etc. Also, how in the world do you come up with the idea that I think justice is subjective. Where did I ever say that. These are immaterial concepts which you can or should understand. Therefore there must be something immaterial in your existence which enables you to do so. That something we call the immortal rational soul. Created in Gods image.

However, you have to understand I don’t need to be able to explain where these things come from. The theist needs to present reason to believe (evidence) that these things come from a omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving entity that created the universe. I rest quite comfortably on “I don’t know.”

This is a convenient CYA argument if I ever heard one.

[Edited]

One of the best refutations of the argument from design is birth defects in my opinion. Why would a loving God do this to someone? This is what God did? - DISTURBING CONTENT
If God did exist, I’d still see no reason to worship him if he’s this ruthless of a jerk.Well, saying it just happened implies time has always existed, so I doubt this just happened since time and space are essentially the same thing. I don’t know whether or not there is an origin. There is no answer that will satisfy anyone if you ask me.

I thought I was discussing with someone who really wanted to know. If no answer can satisfy you, are you admitting you are doing all this just to take up others time and to speak at your atheists club on how yo got the Theists. I would honestly have expected more from you as you did sound reasonable, or was that too an illusion.

I looked at the photos on your reference. Truly these are tragic. And as usual, God gets the blame. You will do this so long as you do not believe in him, and this is Satan’s deception. Don’t believe in him or God, and if God, then all bad is caused by him.

Evil entered this world because of sin, original sin committed by man. Because of this, death, disease, evil entered the world. For God to have prevented this, it would have taken away free will where we can chose him. He does not force himself on us. We can accept him or, like you reject him. Thus consequences.

What happened before the big bang? Why did the singularity expand? I can search all day through mountains of peer reviewed journals, but I will never once find God in there. You can look in every science there is, but you will not find the supernatural as an answer. There really is no reason to believe it’s an answer unless someone presents that reason. The burden of proof is on the theist to show evidence of all this God - to show evidence of design or objective morality.

This is an interesting argument, particularly since you did not respond to my post that I quoted. If you want to look at the original it is post #72.

As far as the big bang, I wholeheartedly believe in it. This is how it happened Ranier, God Spoke and BANG, there it was.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Riley259]

When it comes to logic, one would be a fool to brashly disregard Aquinas. Brilliant people have devoted their lives to Aquinas’ writings because they are so in awe of his intellect.

I have doubts that logic alone can help the hardened, but if anyone is intrigued by any of these ideas, maybe something will take hold. Here is a page with a great set of links regarding Thomistic logic, some of which has been addressed on this thread already.
aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html

Here is an interesting one called Thomas Aquinas and Big Bang Cosmology: www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/carroll.htm

I have to say that this has been interesting. One piece that I read among these links says that for those from whom intuition issues forth a belief in God from deep in our intellect, it can seem like a gift, and then it can fade away. But the writer says that if cultivated, we can also come back to a point of understanding God (in whom we already believe) from the perspective of reason alone. Hmmm.

But I’m not sure even Aquinas expected his logic to convince the hardened, as he is the person who famously said, that “to one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

But hey, we’re trying anyway.

Good links. Thanks.

 

[AquinAugustine]

“One of the best refutations of the argument from design is birth defects in my opinion. Why would a loving God do this to someone? This is what God did?”-I would argue that the fact that birth defects don’t happen more often, and that live births happen as often as they do, is an argument in favor of design.