Whats your favorite argument for the existence of God?

[tonyrey]

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.

Do you regard every human being as a person? Do you think only human beings are persons?

So you do believe persons are biological machines?
There is no conclusive evidence that they are anything more.

So your answer is yes?

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.

So you agree that human beings are the highest forms of existence of which we are aware?

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.

When is extrapolation is justified?

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…
This is an illogical, irrational conclusion because it has no evidence to support it.

Please explain why it is (a) illogical, (b) irrational.

The scientific method is the only reliable form of explanation.

So if a man threatens to kill you you will rely on a scientific explanation rather than an appeal to his conscience and reason? Do you rely on science to make the most important decisions in your life? Do you base your life solely on scientific principles?

Anything else is, by definition, subjective.

So anything subjective is unreliable?

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.

When has the Big Bang been repeated?

All subjective explanations are worthless?
Not necessarily worthless, but not reliable enough in themselves to provide an acceptable “look-no-further” explanation.

So you never trust a person’s explanation?

All explanations which lack predictive power are unreliable?
Yep.

So what does the Big Bang theory predict?

All explanations which refer to unobservable entities should be disregarded?
Not discarded, but challenged and not just blindly trusted as the truth.

What is the ultimate test then of an explanation ?

Your basis for disagreement seems to be that a subjective (and therefore unreliable) answer is just as good as an objective one.

I did not state that all subjective evidence is reliable but pointed out the objective evidence that we have thoughts and make decisions has a subjective origin.

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.

I referred specifically to the experiences of **all **human beings.

Pop across to India!
Eh?

You would realise that materialism overlooks the power of the mind - as demonstrated by the yogi.

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?

From the fact that you believe you are a biological machine - which seems to leave no room for a “self”. It also seems very odd that you cannot define what a self is - given that you refer to yourself.

Do you mean that thoughts and decisions are aspects of brain activity? If so where exactly do the decisions occur?
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.

It does mean that physicalism has serious loopholes - considering that thoughts and decisions are at the root of all rational activity.

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.

Even when that activity and its results are entirely intangible?

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.

So you believe all intangible realities are physical?

How do intuition and inspiration occur in brain activity?
As you are aware, nobody knows.

So they are yet two more serious loopholes in physicalism.

If you want to take this as evidence of a higher power, go right ahead. Just be aware that no evidence supports your supposition.

We are getting there, slowly but surely…

So if laws and morality did not exist in a particular part of the world human beings would not have a right to life?
For example, slaves ‘rightfully’ killed by their masters in 17th and 18th century colonial America…

Do you believe they were justified?

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.

Are our standards superior to theirs? If so why?

How are they related to physical objects?
A truth about a particular physical process will be related to the objects involved in that process.

You have not explained how…

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 your thoughts are not really yours? They occur only in a particular biological machine which belongs to no one?

So there is no reason why we should fight for it?
Stoning for blasphemy used to be considered justice, but not any more (at least in the civilised world).

“civilised” is a term of approbation. So you consider there has been moral progress?

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.

Have they always co-existed?

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.

How do you determine the limits of nature?

Thank you for your patience in answering my questions. I think we are progressing rapidly…

 

[codebilly]

Well that’s me sold, i now know Zeus exists and all because of love…

Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus
(tr. M. A. C. Ellery, 1976)

Most glorious of the immortals, invoked by many names, ever all-powerful,
Zeus, the First Cause of Nature, who rules all things with Law,
Hail! It is right for mortals to call upon you,
since from you we have our being, we whose lot it is to be God’s image,
we alone of all mortal creatures that live and move upon the earth.
Accordingly, I will praise you with my hymn and ever sing of your might.
The whole universe, spinning around the earth,
goes wherever you lead it and is willingly guided by you.
So great is the servant which you hold in your invincible hands,
your eternal, two-edged, lightning-forked thunderbolt.
By its strokes all the works of nature came to be established,
and with it you guide the universal Word of Reason which moves through all creation,
mingling with the great sun and the small stars.
O God, without you nothing comes to be on earth,
neither in the region of the heavenly poles, nor in the sea,
except what evil men do in their folly.
But you know how to make extraordinary things suitable,
and how to bring order forth from chaos; and even that which is unlovely is lovely to you.
For thus you have joined all things, the good with the bad, into one,
so that the eternal Word of all came to be one.
This Word, however, evil mortals flee, poor wretches;
though they are desirous of good things for their possession,
they neither see nor listen to God’s universal Law;
and yet, if they obey it intelligently, they would have the good life.
But they are senselessly driven to one evil after another:
some are eager for fame, no matter how godlessly it is acquired;
others are set on making money without any orderly principles in their lives;
and others are bent on ease and on the pleasures and delights of the body.
They do these foolish things, time and again,
and are swept along, eagerly defeating all they really wish for.
O Zeus, giver of all, shrouded in dark clouds and holding the vivid bright lightning,
rescue men from painful ignorance.
Scatter that ignorance far from their hearts.
and deign to rule all things in justice.
so that, honored in this way, we may render honor to you in return,
and sing your deeds unceasingly, as befits mortals;
for there is no greater glory for men
or for gods than to justly praise the universal Word of Reason.

 

[John_Klicman]

Go out on a clear night and look at the stars. That is one of my favorites for the existence of God.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Go out on a clear night and look at the stars. That is one of my favorites for the existence of God.

We know the origin of that stars, no god is required. In fact if anything the stars are a great argument against god…

youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

 

[1holycatholic]

We know the origin of that stars, no god is required. In fact if anything the stars are a great argument against god…

youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

What is the origin of the universe? http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/ear.gif

 

[Kamalayka]

We know the origin of that stars, no god is required. In fact if anything the stars are a great argument against god…

youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

God, who is consciously aware of every particle of matter, every point in space, every moment of time…​

How is the formation of stars a great argument against God?

May I say that your existence a great argument for stupidity because you are an atheist?

(I am not trying to be rude; I’m trying to make a point.)

 

[wanstronian]

They have already been presented on countless occasions.

Ah. Those ‘proofs.’ Say no more.

 

[wanstronian]

Do you regard every human being as a person?

Yes.

Do you think only human beings are persons?

Strictly speaking, yes.

So your answer is yes?

Well it depends on your definition of “machine.” If it’s “mindless automaton,” then clearly that’s not what I mean. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that they are anything more than what is contained within their biological form.

So you agree that human beings are the highest forms of existence of which we are aware?

“Highest” is too subjective a term. Most intelligent? Yes. Highest level of consciousness? Yes. Best able to survive without our manufactured environment? Hmmm…

When is extrapolation is justified?

When you have the objective means to support the process.

Please explain why it is (a) illogical, (b) irrational.

Because it is unsupported by evidence, of course!

So if a man threatens to kill you you will rely on a scientific explanation rather than an appeal to his conscience and reason?

That’s a daft analogy and you know it. I’d do the latter of course, but I’d do it because we have generations of empirical evidence and experience that this man (probably) has conscience and reason. This doesn’t make the rationale unscientific.

Do you rely on science to make the most important decisions in your life? Do you base your life solely on scientific principles?

You’ve asked me this question before; I’ll refer you to my previous answer here.

So anything subjective is unreliable?

As an axiom, yes.

When has the Big Bang been repeated?

I didn’t say it had. I say the theory is supported by repeatable experiment. Not that the event itself had been re-created.

So you never trust a person’s explanation?

I didn’t say that either. I wish you’d stop putting words in my mouth. If the person providing the explanation is someone you know and trust, and the explanation being provided fits with accepted knowledge and probability, then it’s reasonable to trust their explanation. But a stranger saying that he’s just seen a blue sheep sucking a lollipop would have to provide some evidence of his claim.
The problem here is that you are taking my comments as absolutes. The alternative is that I provide a full context for every comment I make, in which case each of my comments would take an entire post. You need to apply some common sense to avoid the debate breaking down into a discussion on semantics and context.

So what does the Big Bang theory predict?

It predicts the birth of the universe. You need to be aware of the distinction between predictive power and prophecy. The Big Bang theory does not prophesise another Big Bang - it predicts what would happen if there were. The obvious (and accepted) problem is that we won’t be there to see whether the prediction is true, should another Big Bang occur. This is partly what makes it only a theory.

What is the ultimate test then of an explanation ?

As I’ve explained previously. For an explanation to be considered ‘fact’ or ‘truth’ it needs to be backed up by evidence. Beyond reasonable doubt.

I did not state that all subjective evidence is reliable but pointed out the objective evidence that we have thoughts and make decisions has a subjective origin.

True - in fact the whole world might just be in your imagination, effectively making you God!

I referred specifically to the experiences of **all **human beings.

Sorry, I thought that this was connected to the existence of God. So you’re talking about pain, fear etc.? What point are you trying to make?

You would realise that materialism overlooks the power of the mind - as demonstrated by the yogi.

Well, for a start that sounds like a circular belief - until you can prove that the mind is not a product of the brain! Secondly, exactly what do the yogi demonstrate that adds any weight to your argument?

From the fact that you believe you are a biological machine - which seems to leave no room for a “self”.

I hope I’ve addressed this above - ‘machine’ does not equal ‘automaton.’

It also seems very odd that you cannot define what a self is - given that you refer to yourself.

Can you? Can you really define the incredibly complex aspects of what makes a ‘self?’

It does mean that physicalism has serious loopholes - considering that thoughts and decisions are at the root of all rational activity.

Not at all - physicalism is “the theory that all reality must eventually be expressible in the language of physics.” (OED). The fact that we don’t know something does not imperil physicalism.

Even when that activity and its results are entirely intangible?

Such as what? The observed evidence of such activity in others is not intangible, is it?

So you believe all intangible realities are physical?

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, yes. If such evidence were provided I would change my belief immediately - I have no particular stake in physicalism.

So they are yet two more serious loopholes in physicalism.

Well, no, given the definition of physicalism.

We are getting there, slowly but surely…

Do you think so?

Do you believe they were justified?

No, because I have the benefit of evolved modern morals. But if I had lived at the time (and wasn’t myself a slave!) I would probably have thought nothing of it.

Are our standards superior to theirs? If so why?

We would say yes, for reasons which should be obvious; they might say no.

You have not explained how…

Because it depends on the process. Example: The truth of gravity relates to the objects under scrutiny in a particular gravitational experiment by virtue of the description of the objects in the documented results of the experiment.

So your thoughts are not really yours? They occur only in a particular biological machine which belongs to no one?

Do you have total control of your life? No? Then does that mean your life isn’t yours?

“civilised” is a term of approbation. So you consider there has been moral progress?

I consider that there has, yes.

Have they always co-existed?

My supposition is that they have for as long as ‘reality’ has existed

How do you determine the limits of nature?

That’s a good question, you’re keeping me honest! I consider the current effective limits of nature to be that which we can observe and test. That’s not to say that we will not continue to discover more and more, or that the actual limits of nature are not bigger than we currently know - but then we move from fact and theory, to hypothesis.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

What is the origin of the universe? http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/ear.gif

Wooo Hooo god of the gaps is back :extrahappy:

Whats in the black box…

youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok

 

[Charles_Darwin]

God, who is consciously aware of every particle of matter, every point in space, every moment of time…​

How is the formation of stars a great argument against God?

May I say that your existence a great argument for stupidity because you are an atheist?

(I am not trying to be rude; I’m trying to make a point.)

Where did i say the “formation” of the stars is an argument against god?

“May I say that your existence a great argument for stupidity because you are an atheist?”

LOL funny that, for studies show that the higher ones IQ the less likely one is to believe in god. They also show that the more educated one is in science, the less likely one is to be religious.

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/images/_iq_vs_religion.png

My i say that your your argument makes a great case for your own stupidity because it was pretty stupid

 

[codebilly]

Where did i say the “formation” of the stars is an argument against god?

“May I say that your existence a great argument for stupidity because you are an atheist?”

LOL funny that, for studies show that the higher ones IQ the less likely one is to believe in god. They also show that the more educated one is in science, the less likely one is to be religious.

My i say that your your argument makes a great case for your own stupidity because it was pretty stupid

IQ huh? IQ is relative and subjective. You appear to choose to worship mathematics and physics. Mathematics and physics are not God. In fact, most physicists will admit that contemporary theories (both practical and abstract) are merely ‘the best description’ of our observation, but probably do not describe the real phenomenon itself. That is, science and mathematics are only contemporary tools used to explain the observation.

It is notable that the “truth” of science is not absolute. Science changes its perspective and opinion of observed phenomenon.

In fact there is an emerging debate about the relevance (no pun intended) of relativistic space-time cosmology.

There are over 80+ known observed phenomenon that cannot be explained in the body of relativistic physics, but can in fact be explained reasonably well in the field of plasma physics (again no pun intended).

It was also thought until recently that space was a vacuum, but in fact, there is evidence the the “void of space” is actually a plasma.

So contemporary cosmological definitions embraced by astrophysicists, may in time, be viewed as perhaps the biggest mishap in science since the belief that “the world is flat”.

“Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics have hitherto been incorrectly understood. “The only solution would be to reject Newton´s classical theory of gravitation”, says Pavel Kroupa. “We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter”. Such approaches are finding support amongst other research teams in Europe, too.” - Dr. Metz, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German Aero-space Center)

*"The deviations detected in the satellite galaxy data support the hypothesis that in space where extremely weak accelerations predominate, a “modified Newton dynamic” must be adopted. This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics in general, and also for cosmological theories. ¬¬Famous astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of Groningen declares: “The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an observational test so definite.” * - (source) physorg.com/print160726282.html

Goodbye big bang. It’s soon to be a completely dead theory. More and more physicists are accepting (and must accept) that the universe’s behavior is consistent with observed, repeatable, and well understood behaviors of plasmas.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Wooo Hooo god of the gaps is back :extrahappy:

Whats in the black box…

youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok

What Gap is that exactly?

 

[MindOverMatter]

LOL funny that, for studies show that the higher ones IQ the less likely one is to believe in god. They also show that the more educated one is in science, the less likely one is to be religious.

You obviously love straw-men.

Given that science is culturally associated with metaphysical naturalism, it really isn’t a surprise that there would be a huge prejudice against God in the sciences, since atheists do tend think that science will allow them to escape or ignore the indestructible proofs for Gods existence or the supernatural on the basis of scientific principles concerning knowledge. And you don’t seem to realize that many important scientific breakthroughs and discoveries were by people who believed in God. You might want to look that up.

Take this thought home with you. Knowing how to do, lets say, mathematics really well doesn’t mean that you are the greatest intelligence. It just means that you are intelligent in your field of knowledge, and it has very little to do with one be atheist or theist. Given that science can neither disprove or prove the existence of God, ones knowledge of science cannot be used as a criteria for saying that those who excel intellectually will be atheists as if to say that its a necessary outcome of their empirical research. They become atheists on other grounds that has nothing to do with science accept as to act as a superficial and prevalent propaganda machine against religion, a naturalistic fallacy that has been far to long associated with the principles of scientific empiricism.

 

[John_Klicman]

To Charles Darwin…Watched the video, very nice. How does that tell us that God did not create earth? Try this perspective… maybe God only created the earth and the rest of the cosmos for our enjoyment. Carl Sagan takes the premise that there has to be other life on another world based on the vastness of the universe. Good point, but what if God did all this just for us. To show us His Greatness, His love, and that would lead us to love Him.

 

[Kamalayka]

Where did i say the “formation” of the stars is an argument against god?

“May I say that your existence a great argument for stupidity because you are an atheist?”

LOL funny that, for studies show that the higher ones IQ the less likely one is to believe in god. They also show that the more educated one is in science, the less likely one is to be religious.

My i say that your your argument makes a great case for your own stupidity because it was pretty stupid

IQ has nothing to do with knowledge. It has to do with intelligence. Besides, how do you know I am not a member of Mensa?

Your little graph doesn’t really show anything.
What study is it from? Which religion(s)?

I think you make the assumption that Judaism/Christianity is equal to any other religion on earth (when it’s clearly not!)

 

[codebilly]

GOD IS LIGHT

Can anyone deny the existence of light?

**‘This then is the message which we have heard of him and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all’ **- John 1:5

‘I am the light of the world‘ - John 9:5

“God is Light” is our philosophical platform from the very beginning. Our saints and masters of the Science of God Realization (as Light), have been revered since the advent of Christ.

“The very nature of God in Gregory (St. Gregory Nazianzen) is most commonly characterized as ‘light’ (fos), and the ‘terminology of light is one of the basic elements of Gregory’s theological language through his entire career as a church writer’.” - (source) en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_5_7#_ftn1

The word “fos” is cognate with the word Fo and “Bha” and Amitabha is the name of the Pure Land Buddha , The Buddha of Infinite Light.

The Catholic, credo “God from God”, “Light from Light” therefore is in fact a “universally” accepted Truth.

It is conclusive that, the knowledge of God as Infinite Light and the worship of Him as Light was realized by His devotional servants throughout all the ancient world.

Light is the only “thing” we know of that seems to transcends the laws of Time and Space, for Light there is no time, and Light is beyond spacial comprehension (wave particle duality)

The Masters of Light (aka the Saints, sages, sadhus, etc.) have been known to engage in supernatural pastimes, such as bi-location, levitation, and miracles.

 

[Kamalayka]

Wooo Hooo god of the gaps is back :extrahappy:
]

Man, am I sick of hearing that one. We don’t use God to “fill in the gaps.” If I say that our universe has a first cause, how am I “filling in gaps”?

Is deism also “filling in the gaps”?

To say there is no first cause is to fill in the gaps (on your part). You don’t like the idea of a Creator, so you say, “the universe has always existed,” or, “it made itself.”

---

I suppose that Antony Flew doesn’t feel this way anymore, though!

 

[1holycatholic]

Man, am I sick of hearing that one. We don’t use God to “fill in the gaps.” If I say that our universe has a first cause, how am I “filling in gaps”?

Is deism also “filling in the gaps”?

To say there is no first cause is to fill in the gaps (on your part). You don’t like the idea of a Creator, so you say, “the universe has always existed,” or, “it made itself.”

---

I suppose that Antony Flew doesn’t feel this way anymore, though!

CD’s position is scientism.

 

[wussup]

Where did i say the “formation” of the stars is an argument against god?

“May I say that your existence a great argument for stupidity because you are an atheist?”

LOL funny that, for studies show that the higher ones IQ the less likely one is to believe in god. They also show that the more educated one is in science, the less likely one is to be religious.

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/images/_iq_vs_religion.png

My i say that your your argument makes a great case for your own stupidity because it was pretty stupid

Gotta admit, I am curious where the graph comes from (please give a link). I am also curious what the countries and their IQs are.

 

[codebilly]

Gotta admit, I am curious where the graph comes from (please give a link). I am also curious what the countries and their IQs are.

The display font of that graph strongly resemble the DOS default character set. We could narrow it down by determining which countries still use DOS as their main computing platform.