• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

Angel said:
A definition.
Click to expand...

But I can similarly define unicorns and elves and their origins as well. Doesn’t mean they exist empirically, or by logical necessity, does it?
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
Hume's essay assumes the existence of God, but questions the nature of God. My position concerns itself only with the existence of God. The nature of God is assumed to be unknown or unknowable.
As for the deliverances of science on the nature of reality, I'm squarely in the anti-realist or nominalist camp as to what science is actually telling us.
Click to expand...

Regardless, do you think that the existence of the universe, in the absence of a creator God, could logically, even if counterintuitively, be possible?
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
Hume's essay assumes the existence of God, but questions the nature of God. My position concerns itself only with the existence of God. The nature of God is assumed to be unknown or unknowable.
As for the deliverances of science on the nature of reality, I'm squarely in the anti-realist or nominalist camp as to what science is actually telling us.
Click to expand...

————-
“ At the end of the Dialogues he believes that Cleanthes (the teleological theist) offered the strongest arguments. However, this could be out of loyalty to his teacher, as this does not seem to reflect Hume's own views on the topic. When other pieces on religion by Hume are taken into consideration, it may be noted that they all end with (apparently) ironic statements reaffirming the truth of Christian religious views. While the irony may be less readily evident in the Dialogues, this would suggest a similar reading of this work's ending.[2] Cicero (the model upon which this work was based) used a similar technique in his Dialogues.”
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, you did not just prove the existence of god by shuffling a few logically inconsistent sentences around. And even if there is a god, you have no idea if it's your particular flavor of one.

There is not one single shred of evidence to support god's existence or any way to prove one religion any more right than another. If you were secure in your faith in god you wouldn't have to constantly try to convince everyone and yourself on internet forums that he exists.
Click to expand...

I don't want to assume you don't believe in God, but it sounds that you may not.
So, Let me say I do.
My argument is not fancy, just based on belief. Or more aptly on faith. That is what is required, faith. I see evidence in the many wonders of the world, Life itself, beauty of nature, miracle of birth. I also see it in the knowledge of science and the wonder of medicine. I also see it in the healing of terminally ill patients who without any scientific or medical explanation are healed through the belief in prayer.
I finish with this. If I am wrong about God and more precisely about Jesus Christ as my personal savior, I haven't lost anything. If those who do not believe are wrong, well it's not going to be fun.
I don't believe just as a safety belt from damnation, I truly believe in Christ and salvation.
I just can't understand why so many fight so hard to not believe.
 
Integrityrespec said:
I don't want to assume you don't believe in God, but it sounds that you may not.
So, Let me say I do.
My argument is not fancy, just based on belief. Or more aptly on faith. That is what is required, faith. I see evidence in the many wonders of the world, Life itself, beauty of nature, miracle of birth. I also see it in the knowledge of science and the wonder of medicine. I also see it in the healing of terminally ill patients who without any scientific or medical explanation are healed through the belief in prayer.
I finish with this. If I am wrong about God and more precisely about Jesus Christ as my personal savior, I haven't lost anything. If those who do not believe are wrong, well it's not going to be fun.
I don't believe just as a safety belt from damnation, I truly believe in Christ and salvation.
I just can't understand why so many fight so hard to not believe.
Click to expand...

Because many times the consequences, both individually and in terms of social/political considerations, are not always benign.

” During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution... In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.”
-James Madison
Click to expand...
 
weaver2 said:
'Unknown and unknowable" but you can prove it exist?
Click to expand...
Those adjectives pertain to the nature of God, not yo the existence of God. Please re-read the post you quote.
 
ataraxia said:
But I can similarly define unicorns and elves and their origins as well. Doesn’t mean they exist empirically, or by logical necessity, does it?
Click to expand...
Why on earth would you do that?
 
ataraxia said:
Regardless, do you think that the existence of the universe, in the absence of a creator God, could logically, even if counterintuitively, be possible?
Click to expand...
Accidental order on such a scale and of such complexity? It seems to me much more rational to infer to an ordering intelligence. Not to you?
 
Angel said:
Accidental order on such a scale and of such complexity? It seems to me much more rational to infer to an ordering intelligence. Not to you?
Click to expand...

I suppose you haven't heard of chaos theory?
 
Angel said:
Why on earth would you do that?
Click to expand...

My motivations should not matter. My question is more of an epistemic one. Because if I can do that with unicorns, I can do that with anything, right?
 
Angel said:
Accidental order on such a scale and of such complexity? It seems to me much more rational to infer to an ordering intelligence. Not to you?
Click to expand...

If you read Hawking‘s book “The Grand Design”, he talks about how modern M theory makes the idea of an I designed universe a very distinct possibility.

Of course there could potentially be many other ways this could happen. M theory could, despite all its current appeal among physicists, eventually be shown to be wrong. But the point is that there’s nothing logically impossible about such a possible theory.
 
Angel said:
Those adjectives pertain to the nature of God, not yo the existence of God. Please re-read the post you quote.
Click to expand...

Round, juicy, sweet, peel-able, orange. description of an orange is part of what it really is.

Unknown, unknowable, the best explanation, tracks , abstract, essential, an ordering intelligence, exists, is One, creator , neither male nor female, eternal, not created, omniscient=description
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, they are simply not (as?) widely worshiped. Your assertion that a sky daddy (or whatever physical attributes you assign to your definition of "the true God") exists is based on no more than being able to describe his/her attributes and superpowers. Perhaps I should have added a bigfoot (yeti) to the list of mythical beings, since folks have sworn to have seen them too.
Click to expand...

You left out the Greys, I be more willing to believe in life on other planets than a man made deity.
 
Angel said:
Those adjectives pertain to the nature of God, not yo the existence of God. Please re-read the post you quote.
Click to expand...

They apply to both
 
weaver2 said:
Round, juicy, sweet, peel-able, orange. description of an orange is part of what it really is.

Unknown, unknowable, the best explanation, tracks , abstract, essential, an ordering intelligence, exists, is One, creator , neither male nor female, eternal, not created, omniscient=description
Click to expand...

Horned, pure-white, graceful, powerful= description of a unicorn.

Jolly, slides down chimneys every year to bring presents for good boys and girls, ruddy cheeks, and a twinkle in the eyes= description of Santa.

Elephant headed god of learning and knowlege, good natured, with big belly= Description of Lord Ganesha in Hinduism.

These are all descriptions. What do these descriptions imply about their actual existence?
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
Accidental order on such a scale and of such complexity? It seems to me much more rational to infer to an ordering intelligence. Not to you?
Click to expand...

Not to Stephen Hawking.

”One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator....It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
-Stephen Hawking

Have you studied M-theory?
 
weaver2 said:
Round, juicy, sweet, peel-able, orange. description of an orange is part of what it really is...
Click to expand...
Those adjectives pertain to the nature of the orange, not to the existence of the orange -- to what the orange is. That it is, is another question.
 
ataraxia said:
My motivations should not matter. My question is more of an epistemic one. Because if I can do that with unicorns, I can do that with anything, right?
Click to expand...
Children and militant atheists do the sort of thing you suggest. It is a frivolous exercise, and insulting to the intelligence of a rational adult. Draw what epistemic conclusions you will.
 
ataraxia said:
If you read Hawking‘s book “The Grand Design”, he talks about how modern M theory makes the idea of an I designed universe a very distinct possibility.

Of course there could potentially be many other ways this could happen. M theory could, despite all its current appeal among physicists, eventually be shown to be wrong. But the point is that there’s nothing logically impossible about such a possible theory.
Click to expand...
There's nothing logically impossible about solipsism either. I'm afraid I don't share your veneration of Hawking in particular or science in general.
 
Angel said:
Tracks

It's all a matter of tracking, folks.

If you come across these tracks:
ld5LMLG.jpg

You'd be justified in concluding that a bird had been there.


If you came across these tracks:
iCL5v2Yl.jpg

You'd be justified in concluding that a dog had passed through.

And so on:
6TUfoU1.jpg



If you come across a universe, life forms, and conscious being...
you'd be justified in inferring to a God.


Atheists are poor trackers, is all.​
Click to expand...
A "you-can-say-that-again" kind of post.
In the running for Post of the Year recognition.
Would make a terrific Original Post in a new thread, dontcha think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom