B
buffalo
Guest
This would be an immature idea of God. Through the ages we have come to a better knowledge of God.While we’re at it, i see god in a pink and white polka dot dress, and jesus as an emo.
- Status
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Yes there is, there is logical evidence of his existence. In fact, instead of making wild assertions, perhaps you should go to the thread titled eight steps to the existence of God, and find out.
In what sense exaclty is God infinetly complex? And also please be kind enough to give a logical explaination to why this leads to the improbability of his existence. Its hardly an arguement on your part untill you do this for once in your internet life.
Explain how? Assertions don’t explain themselves.
What is the cause if not an inteligent designer? How do we explain the irreducible meaning found in living organisms and the universe in regards to the laws of physics? If we cannot explain it by physical cause and effect relationships, then we need another explanation, and i see no good reason to stop with physics. If you percieve everything as being made up of inert matter and energy, then what makes you think that its rational, in principle, to believe that there is even a small possibility of us having a free-concious-will in an enviroment made up of purely inert physical events and causes? What makes you think that it is reasonable to think that thoughts are physical? Are you saying that my thinking of the universe, the idea in itself, is synonmous to an atom being in a specific location in space/time? Are you saying ideas are attached to atoms?
Whats your answer wanstronian? Let me guess. You have faith that science will one day have a miracolous answer, and this is your reason for ignoring the fact that the evidence is pointing in the direction of theism. Sounds purely desire based to me, with a little bit of wishful thinking as a side dish. Your faith does not allow theism even as a posibility.
You haven’t, at best, you have made wild assertions and expressed you prejudice of people who believe in God.
Prove it? Its either the truth or it isn’t. If you are saying that we are all nut cases because we believe and value the belief that we have an objective meaning value and purpose in life, then this is hardly more then just your prejudice opinion, since you have no evidence. And what is your objective basis for determining that Christians are insane? This is a value judgement that is either “objectivly true”, or it is just a prejudice on your part. Are you asserting that their is an objective “ought” in regards to objective belief and behavior?
You have; you either fail to understand them, or you refuse to. Blind Denial is the more likley of the two.
Well atheism provides nothing except for what the atheist is willing to fantisize, at worst providing a platform for destructive nihilistic attitudes; so i guess at worse we’re in the same boat. Unless you intend to admit that you believe in objective value judgements?
J
j1akey
Guest
Logical evidence does not equal any kind of evidence in the scientific community. I’m sorry but it just doesn’t. Logically I could say the sun revolves around the earth because I see it moving in the sky but these days we all know that isn’t true. Logic is not infallable, that’s why you need to be able to test things. Obviously the existance of god is untestable though.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
If we cannot transcend the mind inorder to gain epistomological knowlegde of the universe, then you are ultimately building your house on sand. If you cannot verify, epistomologically speaking, the existence of the objective universe through the scientific method, then i would think very carefully before making the scientific method the be all and end all of ligitimate knowledge.
Good luck with that
.
F
Fran65
Guest
Hi Wan,
You keep saying that you have logically argued against the assertion that God exists. However, I am unable to substantiate this claim in your posts to this thread. What I do have evidence for is repetition of the phrase without any real, extensive demonstration of how you have done this. You ask a question and assume that you’ve won the point because you asked it.
In addition, you have asserted several times that you haven’t been presented with any evidence that you will accept in favour of the argument for God’s existence yet I find this unsubstantiated too. Nowhere on this thread have you *clearly and unambiguously *stated what your problems are with the evidence. You just keep saying ‘it ain’t so’.
Your tactic appears to be to ask questions without being willing to discuss the answer in any substantive way other than to ask another question, say that it doesn’t make sense, or its not true, or its not logical. Without demonstrating clearly and unambiguously why you think any of these things, as we have been willing to do, it is difficult to proceed in any meaningful way. Its just not productive or fun trying to discuss real, important things with someone who doesn’t follow the implicit rules of discussion.
You keep saying that you have logically argued against the assertion that God exists. However, I am unable to substantiate this claim in your posts to this thread. What I do have evidence for is repetition of the phrase without any real, extensive demonstration of how you have done this. You ask a question and assume that you’ve won the point because you asked it.
In addition, you have asserted several times that you haven’t been presented with any evidence that you will accept in favour of the argument for God’s existence yet I find this unsubstantiated too. Nowhere on this thread have you *clearly and unambiguously *stated what your problems are with the evidence. You just keep saying ‘it ain’t so’.
Your tactic appears to be to ask questions without being willing to discuss the answer in any substantive way other than to ask another question, say that it doesn’t make sense, or its not true, or its not logical. Without demonstrating clearly and unambiguously why you think any of these things, as we have been willing to do, it is difficult to proceed in any meaningful way. Its just not productive or fun trying to discuss real, important things with someone who doesn’t follow the implicit rules of discussion.
L
liquidpele
Guest
I can only assume you completely missed the point of my post.
J
johngh
Guest
I think most atheists are not true atheists. What I mean by that is that if you are a real atheist, and you honestly believe that everything is an accident, and logically therefore everything is meaningless, then you should naturally believe that morality is stupid and pointless.
But you will find that most atheists do not believe that, and still hold to some values. I think that is because God gives us all a conscience, and there are very few people in the world that can truly ignore their conscience. In a way most atheists actually do believe in God, they just don’t know it.
But you will find that most atheists do not believe that, and still hold to some values. I think that is because God gives us all a conscience, and there are very few people in the world that can truly ignore their conscience. In a way most atheists actually do believe in God, they just don’t know it.
J
johngh
Guest
Well of course you cannot PROVE that God exists, but you can use logic and scientific evidence to show that God most likely does exist. After all, there is a very good reason that the vast majority of great scientists in the modern wold believe in God.
B
buffalo
Guest
Many scientists believe quarks exist even though they are not empirically provable. This instrumentalist science is legitimate in science. So while God may not be testable, God can be a plausible explanation for certain observations.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Wow… you’re wrong on every single account. Good job.
Atheism has a definition… as in you don’t believe in God. If you decide you don’t, even for 10 minutes, then for 10 minutes you are an atheist.
Everything is not an accident… I specifically decided to eat my lunch today, that was no accident. Atheists don’t believe God created everything, that’s it. To explain our existance, there are many theories but usually it’s a big “I don’t know for sure”. In short, it does not mean that everything is meaningless.
You come to these conclusions because you believe meaning and morality are defined by God. I’m curious, if there was no God (for arguments sake) how you would explain the morality and meaning we see every day then?
A
authenticity
Guest
A basic definition of God:
What credibility does the self have to hold such a position? Consider your own self or a large part of human civilization. It is flawed. Take a look at nature and the universe. It maintains it’s integrity at all times. The question is, do you put your faith in the one that created human civilization or the one who created the universe?
- He is the creator of all this.
- He is not you.
What credibility does the self have to hold such a position? Consider your own self or a large part of human civilization. It is flawed. Take a look at nature and the universe. It maintains it’s integrity at all times. The question is, do you put your faith in the one that created human civilization or the one who created the universe?
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Objective value systems do not exist out side of that which is objectively perfect. Without an objective perfection in which everything comes to be and is judged accordingly, concepts such as right and wrong is objectively meaningless.
To say that one ought not to rape a small child is not true if there is no objective standard/measure of personal behavior. If there only physical things, then there is no such things as objective standards, for there is no logical basis to conceive of them outside of some subjective prejudice.Objective morality means that there is a purposeful and meaningful end to which all personal behavior ought to direct itself. Which means that we exist for the purpose of good. I believe there are objective standards and i choose to believe in such things first because it appears to me that there are objective standards given that there is such a thing as guilt; and two, i want to believe it because i value my self as a person. I refuse to believe that I’m just a physical object and that my mind is an illusion and that my thoughts are caused by physical events rather then by me. Naturalism doesn’t make sense of my being a person.
L
liquidpele
Guest
There was a rather long discussion about that topic on an earlier thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=339062
M
Mijoy2
Guest
How else could morality be defined? Genuine question, do you have another theory?
To me, it appears it must come from God. I believe God is Love and Love is God. God is a Person who embodies Love. This is for a reason, such that we may live eternally in an ocean of Love.
If I am correct (or at least on the right track) then we need to become more mature in this Love. Therefore we need guidence. This guidence is the Word of God and comes in the manner of the Person Jesus Christ. Hence God defines morality which helps to guide us to this infinate Love.
If I am wrong then morality is nothing more then a part of the “survival of the fittest” mentallity of evolution. In other words, why do I love my children? I cannot understand where this love comes from if it does not come from God. Other then a survival instinct. I love my children in order to protect the species. If I did not love my children I would likely not protect them and this would negatively affect evolution.
IF, this is the only reason I love my children my love for them is relatively pointless. Because I could not care less if the human race survives without a God. Hence the popular saying, “in one hundred years what difference will it make?”
I’d like to propose a question for the athiest. If you (the hypothetical “you”) were to drop your wallet at a crowded train station who would you rather have notice and pick it up, another athiest or a christian? I’d prefer the christian. I feel I’d have better odds of getting it back. Because the christian is more inherently moral? No, not at all. Becasue the christian believes what he does with the wallet is known by God. Therefore he may return it to me. The athiest really has no reason to return it all. After all, he could use the money that is in it too. He might as well keep it.
I think the truthful humble christian will admit he would not be the same person (morally) without God’s fatherly watchful eye.
L
liquidpele
Guest
(assuming you didn’t see my other reply), already discussed on a previous thread, including my own posts on the matter in there somewhere:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=339062
It’s interesting you bring up dropping your wallet too… there is a study on that:
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6681923.ece
M
Mijoy2
Guest
You are correct I did not see your posts on the previous thread. Thanks, I will read this thread and see what others have to say regarding this.
And as far as the wallet thingie…so I didn’t make it up? darn!
T
tonyrey
Guest
What is the evidence for physicalism? How do you **know **that is not airy-fairy conjecture?
Your physicalism is again evident.
There is very good reason to believe physical reality is an **inadequate **explanation of reality as a whole…
:
How do animals show signs of reason and goodwill?
Why not?
That mental experiences constitute evidence.
The existence of rational, free, conscious and purposeful beings.
We also know that intangible realities exist from our own direct experience. In fact they are far more important and significant than inanimate, purposeless objects.
Your ignorance is not a sound basis for atheism.
Lack of scientific knowledge necessitates the inadequacy of science as an exhaustive explanation of reality - quite apart from the fact that science cannot explain itself.
How can a link in a chain **control **itself or be responsible for what it does?
How do you know it’s not true?
You have already conceded that intangible realities constitute evidence. They cannot be ignored in a **comprehensive explanation **of reality as a whole.
That is another gratuitous statement which needs justification.
If atheism doesn’t claim to have a comprehensive explanation of reality why do you state that NeoDarwinismisthe best explanation of intelligence? Why do you dissociate atheism from NeoDarwinism and compartmentalise your thinking? Any attempt to disprove theism must be based on positive beliefs - unless of course it is vacuous.
It demonstrates the inadequacy of physicalism.
You have not explained why you treat them as persons with the right to life and self-determination.
How is Darwinism logic-based? How does Darwinism explain the **origin **of life? Why do many reputable scientists reject Darwinism? Your physicalism is again evident in your dogmatic assertion that Darwinism is the only evidence- or logic-based explanation for life on earth.
Who energised irrational, purposeless energy? You still have an infinite regress or an arbitrary, evidence-less backstop.
You return to your false dilemma. **Purposeful **evolution implies a rational Being.
On the basis of one dogma - that of physicalism for which you cannot provide one jot of evidence.
M
Matthias123
Guest
Have you every wondered why people believe in the existence of God before reasoning through it philosophically? Have you ever encountered a convert that found God through philosophical reasoning?
The atheist assumes that the theist is just being irrational. He does not even think to ponder whether some element of mysticism may be involved.
The fact is that people cannot know God through philosophy. You can establish His existence, but you will never see him.
A perfect example of this is Aristotle. Aristotle by means of philosophical reasoning climbed to the position of monotheist theism – but he never knew God. He didn’t know who He was, he didn’t know if He was active in history or not. He never knew Him, but he knew he existed.
The Christian knows God, not by philosophical argument, but by honestly seeking him with a pure heart.
Hitchens once demanded that “the 87.5% of Americans that believe in God give proof for his existence” (Letter to a Christian nation). He assumed that they had no bases for a belief in God because to him any element of mysticism was equivalent to fairy dust and flying elephants.
To the Christian philosophical reasoning is secondary – we already know him.
The truth is that Christians know God exists because they can see Him. The Atheist and agnostic does not see him and that is why they need to explain his existence philosophically. Of course mysticism is madness to them, just as Christ crucified was madness to the Romans, and Christ risen from the dead was madness to the Greeks.
In all honesty the root problem of every non-believer throughout history is the same: “They do not wish to seek God with a pure heart:”. They do not respond to His call. When they hear His subtle voice calling them to seek Him, and calling them to thirst for Truth and goodness they flee, and/or call it something else. For these people no amount of philosophical reasoning will help them. Even if they are like Anthony Flew and become a theist, unless they seek Him with a pure heart they will never know Him.
If you want some evidence, how about the testimony of a convert. Ask them if they knew God through philosophical reasoning. I tell you that every convert has converted not through philosophical argument but through a call from God.
The atheist assumes that the theist is just being irrational. He does not even think to ponder whether some element of mysticism may be involved.
The fact is that people cannot know God through philosophy. You can establish His existence, but you will never see him.
A perfect example of this is Aristotle. Aristotle by means of philosophical reasoning climbed to the position of monotheist theism – but he never knew God. He didn’t know who He was, he didn’t know if He was active in history or not. He never knew Him, but he knew he existed.
The Christian knows God, not by philosophical argument, but by honestly seeking him with a pure heart.
Hitchens once demanded that “the 87.5% of Americans that believe in God give proof for his existence” (Letter to a Christian nation). He assumed that they had no bases for a belief in God because to him any element of mysticism was equivalent to fairy dust and flying elephants.
To the Christian philosophical reasoning is secondary – we already know him.
The truth is that Christians know God exists because they can see Him. The Atheist and agnostic does not see him and that is why they need to explain his existence philosophically. Of course mysticism is madness to them, just as Christ crucified was madness to the Romans, and Christ risen from the dead was madness to the Greeks.
In all honesty the root problem of every non-believer throughout history is the same: “They do not wish to seek God with a pure heart:”. They do not respond to His call. When they hear His subtle voice calling them to seek Him, and calling them to thirst for Truth and goodness they flee, and/or call it something else. For these people no amount of philosophical reasoning will help them. Even if they are like Anthony Flew and become a theist, unless they seek Him with a pure heart they will never know Him.
If you want some evidence, how about the testimony of a convert. Ask them if they knew God through philosophical reasoning. I tell you that every convert has converted not through philosophical argument but through a call from God.
F
Fran65
Guest
S
Spock
Guest
This is the most irritating “argument”, and it keeps coming back. The fault is with the atheist, because he does not seek God with a “pure heart”. Because he did not seek long enough, he did not seek hard enough. What nonsense!
You do not believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, because you refused to seek him with an open heart. You stubbornly refuse the testimonial of those who basked in the glory of His Blessed Tentacles. How does this argument strike you?
Please! Let’s stop this nonsense right now! The atheists do not believe, because they find the concept utterly without merit - just like you do not believe in the existence of FSM. We are all atheists. You do not believe in the existence of all those other “gods”, except one. We make no exception. If and when you will understand why you don’t believe in all those deities, you will understand why we don’t believe in yours. Go and examine your own reasons, why you refuse to believe in Zeus, Jupiter, Zoroaster, Kali, etc… write down your reasons and share them with us.
- Status