Whats your favorite argument for the existence of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johngh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And that wouldn’t be a very good indicator that that emotion and that neurological process are connected?
That the planets go around the sun tells you nothing except that they seem to accompany one another? No indication for some law of gravity?
The body and brain and nervous system are electro chemical systems. I assume you presume that the matter and its interactions create the electrical processes of the system. That is certainly true for a battery, where energy is stored in advance.

But its not necessarily true of an electro magnetic field of circuit. Energy can be stored in the field of a electro magnetic circuit, and then transfered from that circuit. The energy transfered is call an electromagnetic wave (aka LIGHT) …

By way of conservation of energy, the energy in the body and brain and nervous system must be discharged at the time of death. Electromagnetic energy cannot be destroyed.
 
I’ve read through this entire post and perhaps I missed it, but not a single person mentioned that:

LOVE is proof that God Exisits!

For the saint, Love wells up from the heart and obliterates all logical controversies. The burden of the atheist philosopher, or any philosopher that rejects God is Love must also prove that speculative reasoning and “logical conclusion” is above emotional experience. That is, one must prove mental speculation is somehow superior to “feelings”.

I know of no cognitive philosophy that can produce a body of witnesses that give common testimony of an atheistic experiential revelation.

On the other hand, the saints, sages, and masters of all theistic tradition provide a path that leads to a common experience. This is called SCIENCE. THERE EXISTS A SCIENCE OF GOD REALIZATION. THE CONVERSE IS NOT TRUE.

God as love is the foundation of ALL Truth, inclusive of non Christian theists.

The self surrender of Jesus is the witness of His incomprehensible compassion and love.

For atheist or agnostic, the real question that must be answered is “Does Love Exist?” "Is Love transcendent (does love transcend time, … it is eternal)?

Our (theistic) philosophy says from the beginning, God IS Love. That is our science of God. That is our platform. We have laid claim to this platform throughout all recorded history, and from all cultures, denominations, and religions.

Love exists. Love is eternal. God is Love.

***"God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” ***(1 Jn 4:16).
Darn it, looks like we all missed that insightful and irrefutable proof! 😃
 
Darn it, looks like we all missed that insightful and irrefutable proof! 😃
No proof of love? You deny the existence of Love? Now? The past? Are you saying that the entire history of Love as documented in countless works of poetry, art, philosophy, sculpture, music, shrines, etc. from the time of early civilization up to the present is not real evidence?

ps - not to mention the countless testimonies of direct experience …
 
And that wouldn’t be a very good indicator that that emotion and that neurological process are connected?
That the planets go around the sun tells you nothing except that they seem to accompany one another? No indication for some law of gravity?
It took Newton to realise that planetary orbits and gravity were connected in some way. His theory was confirmed when the predictions made using his theory of gravitation, and his three laws of motion, coincided with what was actually observed.

When it comes to the relationship between consciousness and neurological processes there is nothing even close to being comparable. Just a lot of hand waving in the air by materialists.
 
It took Newton to realise that planetary orbits and gravity were connected in some way. His theory was confirmed when the predictions made using his theory of gravitation, and his three laws of motion, coincided with what was actually observed.

When it comes to the relationship between consciousness and neurological processes there is nothing even close to being comparable. Just a lot of hand waving in the air by materialists.
What we do know is consciousness is directly linked to the physical brain.
 
I’ve read through this entire post and perhaps I missed it, but not a single person mentioned that:
LOVE is proof that God Exists!
I regret that you missed this:
  1. Personal existence is the highest form of existence we know because persons are creative, conscious, rational, autonomous, moral, purposeful and have a capacity for love
  2. The most adequate explanation of reality is in terms of the highest form of existence
  3. Therefore the most adequate, intelligible and economical explanation of reality is a supremely creative, conscious, rational, autonomous, moral, purposeful and** loving **Being
 
What we know is that the mind has got a data processor, and it is called the brain. Beyond that, the nature of mind is a complete mystery.
I would agree that there is much about the mind we don’t know, which makes speculation unfounded and pointless.
 
What we know is that the mind has got a data processor, and it is called the brain. Beyond that, the nature of mind is a complete mystery.
You might want to think carefully about your definition of “we” in that statement. :o
 
But we’re getting away from the point here - you’re implying that I de-personalise people. That’s not the case at all - I just recognise that people are physical organisms.
Persons are physical organisms and nothing more than physical organisms? Then why use the term “persons” in addition to “humans” or “human beings”?
I assume you are not implying that “most people” don’t believe that persons are biological in nature. More likely that they are not purely biological. However, there’s no evidence that this the case.
So you do believe persons are biological machines?
The existence of consciousness is not evidence, any more than the existence of my glass of water.
It is evidence that there is a higher level of existence than that of beings which do not know they exist.
Do you believe everything for which there is no evidence?
Of course not, that would be as stupid as believing in God .
Then why do you believe persons are “purely biological”?
Such as the origin of rational beings from irrational processes…
Again you demonstrate that your argument is one from personal incredulity. Not from any kind of evidence or robust logic.
Incredulity based on the absurdity and unintelligibility of the proposition that rational beings are composed of nothing more than irrational particles which exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever…
Once again you are assuming that scientific explanation is the only valid form of explanation.
Let’s be careful here. I’m not talking about science, in terms of physics and chemistry, I’m talking about the scientific method. This means that any explanations have to be observable, predictable, objective and repeatable.
So any unique event - such as the Big Bang - is not an explanation? All subjective explanations are worthless? All explanations which lack predictive power are unreliable? All explanations which refer to unobservable entities should be disregarded?
I can’t see that any other method can produce reliable results. Surely, by definition, if it doesn’t meet the above criteria it’s just subjective - which is not an adequate basis for explanation. I’d be really interested to hear any basis for disagreement.
You already have it!
Nor is there any evidence that intangible realities are the product of anything other than physical processes. We just don’t know. Not knowing is a lousy reason to make stuff up.
Not knowing is a lousy reason to reject an explanation which is in accord with our personal experience.
What evidence can you produce for that belief?
None - as I said, it’s a belief. It’s tentatively supported, I suppose, by a lack of any other valid explanation, but I’m aware that I might be wrong. If I am, I’ll be thrilled to know the truth if and when it is discovered using an adequate process.
How would you define a self?
Ooh, there’s a question! I’m not sure I can in any meaningful terms.
If you cannot define it it seems to be an indication that you do not believe there is a self, i.e. an intangible entity.
As I said, they are aspects. In the same way that a branch could be said to be an aspect of a tree.
Do you mean that they are thoughts and decisions are all aspects of brain activity? If so where exactly do the decisions occur?
When everyone has similar subjective experiences those experiences become objective evidence.
Subjective experiences can be influenced in a number of ways: by written material; by indoctrination; by individual belief; or by chemical means.
Let me put it more precisely. If all human beings have thoughts and make decisions does that count as objective evidence that thoughts and decisions occur?
Then you are not justified in regarding physical explanations as the only valid explanations.
You are getting confused between ‘physical’ and ‘tangible.’
How would you distinguish between ‘physical’ and ‘tangible’ ?
"I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research." - Einstein
A good quote, the meaning of which you presumably fail to grasp!
The boot is on the other foot! How do intuition and inspiration occur in brain activity?
Why do bodies have a right to life?
Because human laws and morals have developed (in most countries) to mandate it.
So if laws and morality did not exist in a particular part of the world human beings would not have a right to life? And the persons who lived prior to human laws did not have a right to life either?
Then truths must be intangible realities.
Yes.
How are they related to physical objects?
So you believe thoughts are determined by physical events?
As I said earlier, yes, I do believe that. I have no evidence for it, but nor is there any evidence that it’s otherwise.
So you have no control over your thoughts? They are produced by bioelectrical activity?
What precisely is justice then?
As I said, justice is a human concept.
So there is no reason why we should fight for it?

Do you believe tangible reality is more fundamental than intangible reality?
 
wanstronian;5736549:
But we’re getting away from the point here - you’re implying that I de-personalise people. That’s not the case at all - I just recognise that people are physical organisms.
Persons are physical organisms and nothing more than physical organisms? Then why use the term “persons” in addition to “humans” or “human beings”?
I assume you are not implying that “most people” don’t believe that persons are biological in nature. More likely that they are not purely biological. However, there’s no evidence that this the case.
So you do believe persons are biological machines?
The existence of consciousness is not evidence, any more than the existence of my glass of water.
It is evidence that there is a higher level of existence than that of beings which do not know they exist.
Do you believe everything for which there is no evidence?
Of course not, that would be as stupid as believing in God .Then why do you believe persons are “purely biological”?
Such as the origin of rational beings from irrational processes…
Again you demonstrate that your argument is one from personal incredulity. Not from any kind of evidence or robust logic.Incredulity based on the absurdity and unintelligibility of the proposition that rational beings are composed of nothing more than irrational particles which exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever…
Once again you are assuming that scientific explanation is the only valid form of explanation.
Let’s be careful here. I’m not talking about science, in terms of physics and chemistry, I’m talking about the scientific method. This means that any explanations have to be observable, predictable, objective and repeatable.
So any unique event - such as the Big Bang - is not an explanation? All subjective explanations are worthless? All explanations which lack predictive power are unreliable? All explanations which refer to unobservable entities should be disregarded?
I can’t see that any other method can produce reliable results. Surely, by definition, if it doesn’t meet the above criteria it’s just subjective - which is not an adequate basis for explanation. I’d be really interested to hear any basis for disagreement.
You already have it!
Nor is there any evidence that intangible realities are the product of anything other than physical processes. We just don’t know. Not knowing is a lousy reason to make stuff up.
Not knowing is a lousy reason to reject an explanation which is in accord with our personal experience.
What evidence can you produce for that belief?
None - as I said, it’s a belief. It’s tentatively supported, I suppose, by a lack of any other valid explanation, but I’m aware that I might be wrong. If I am, I’ll be thrilled to know the truth if and when it is discovered using an adequate process.
Pop across to India! 🙂
How would you define a self?
Ooh, there’s a question! I’m not sure I can in any meaningful terms.
If you cannot define it it seems to be an indication that you do not believe there is a self, i.e. an intangible entity.
As I said, they are aspects. In the same way that a branch could be said to be an aspect of a tree.
Do you mean that thoughts and decisions are aspects of brain activity? If so where exactly do the decisions occur?
When everyone has similar subjective experiences those experiences become objective evidence.
Subjective experiences can be influenced in a number of ways: by written material; by indoctrination; by individual belief; or by chemical means.Let me put it more precisely. If all human beings have thoughts and make decisions does that count as objective evidence that thoughts and decisions occur?
Then you are not justified in regarding physical explanations as the only valid explanations.
You are getting confused between ‘physical’ and 'tangible.'How would you distinguish between ‘physical’ and ‘tangible’ ?
"I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research." - Einstein
A good quote, the meaning of which you presumably fail to grasp!The boot is on the other foot! How do intuition and inspiration occur in brain activity?
Why do bodies have a right to life?
Because human laws and morals have developed (in most countries) to mandate it.So if laws and morality did not exist in a particular part of the world human beings would not have a right to life? And the persons who lived prior to human laws did not have a right to life either?
Then truths must be intangible realities.
Yes.
How are they related to physical objects?
So you believe thoughts are determined by physical events?
As I said earlier, yes, I do believe that. I have no evidence for it, but nor is there any evidence that it’s otherwise.So you have no control over your thoughts? They are produced by bioelectrical activity?
What precisely is justice then?
As I said, justice is a human concept.So there is no reason why we should fight for it?

Do you believe tangible reality is more fundamental than intangible reality? Or do they co-exist?
 
No proof of love? You deny the existence of Love? Now? The past? Are you saying that the entire history of Love as documented in countless works of poetry, art, philosophy, sculpture, music, shrines, etc. from the time of early civilization up to the present is not real evidence?
Not evidence of God, no. Assuming you disagree, please explain.
ps - not to mention the countless testimonies of direct experience …
Oh, please.:rolleyes:
 
Persons are physical organisms and nothing more than physical organisms? Then why use the term “persons” in addition to “humans” or “human beings”?
They are subsets. As dogs and cats are subsets of ‘animals.’ My point was explained in my previous post.
So you do believe persons are biological machines?
There is no conclusive evidence that they are anything more
It is evidence that there is a higher level of existence than that of beings which do not know they exist.
Yes, but it is not evidence of the existence of God. If you’re on an extrapolation mission, then I should point out two things: Firstly that there is no logic for extrapolation beyond what we can demonstrate, and secondly if you do overstep that bound, you need to show that your extrapolation leads to God and no further.
Then why do you believe persons are “purely biological”?
There’s a difference between believing *some *things for which there are no *conclusive *evidence, and believing everything for which there is zero evidence.
Incredulity based on the absurdity and unintelligibility of the proposition that rational beings are composed of nothing more than irrational particles which exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever…
Well, yes. You don’t see how it can happen, so God must have done it. This is an illogical, irrational conclusion because it has no evidence to support it.
Once again you are assuming that scientific explanation is the only valid form of explanation.
Yes. The scientific method is the only reliable form of explanation. Anything else is, by definition, subjective.That’s kind of the point of the SM.
So any unique event - such as the Big Bang - is not an explanation?
The Big Bang is a theory, supported by results of repeatable experimentation.
All subjective explanations are worthless?
Not necessarily worthless, but not reliable enough in themselves to provide an acceptable “look-no-further” explanation.
All explanations which lack predictive power are unreliable?
Yep.
All explanations which refer to unobservable entities should be disregarded?
Not discarded, but challenged and not just blindly trusted as the truth.
You already have it!
Your basis for disagreement seems to be that a subjective (and therefore unreliable) answer is just as good as an objective one. Now we know where you stand!
Not knowing is a lousy reason to reject an explanation which is in accord with our personal experience.
I know you like playing with other people’s words, but in fact you are wrong. If it works for you personally, that’s absolutely fine, but you shouldn’t try to convince other people that your experiences have any validity in an objective reality.
Pop across to India! 🙂
Eh?:confused:
If you cannot define it it seems to be an indication that you do not believe there is a self, i.e. an intangible entity.
Not at all. Where did you get that idea?
Do you mean that thoughts and decisions are aspects of brain activity? If so where exactly do the decisions occur?
Oh, here we go again - we’ve been here before, you and I. Just because the intricate workings of the brain have not been precisely mapped out and explained in great detail, it doesn’t mean that thoughts and decisions occur elsewhere. This is your personal incredulity showing again.
Let me put it more precisely. If all human beings have thoughts and make decisions does that count as objective evidence that thoughts and decisions occur?
Only by virtue of the fact that we can observe the results of such activity, that we each personally have such activity and can recognise the consistency of that activity in others.
How would you distinguish between ‘physical’ and ‘tangible’ ?
Well, I would say that light is intangible, but it is still physical in that it can be described in terms of physical formulae. Just as an example.
The boot is on the other foot! How do intuition and inspiration occur in brain activity?
As you are aware, nobody knows. If you want to take this as evidence of a higher power, go right ahead. Just be aware that no evidence supports your supposition.
So if laws and morality did not exist in a particular part of the world human beings would not have a right to life?
Not by the standards of the people in that part of the world at that time. There is plenty of empirical evidence for this in actuality. For example, slaves ‘rightfully’ killed by their masters in 17th and 18th century colonial America…
And the persons who lived prior to human laws did not have a right to life either?
Not by the standards of the day, no. Only by our modern moral standards.
How are they related to physical objects?
That depends on the truth. A truth about a particular physical process will be related to the objects involved in that process.
So you have no control over your thoughts? They are produced by bioelectrical activity?
Yes. There is no evidence to support a contrary view.
So there is no reason why we should fight for it?
I didn’t say that, I just said that justice is a matter of perspective. An eye for an eye used to be considered justice, but not any more (generally). Stoning for blasphemy used to be considered justice, but not any more (at least in the civilised world).
Do you believe tangible reality is more fundamental than intangible reality? Or do they co-exist?
Within the scope of my definitions above, they co-exist. If you’re talking about ‘supernatural reality’ then my instinct is to call the phrase a dichotomy, because there is no evidence of any supernatural events or entities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top