• 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:
The epitome of stupidity (which must be distinguished from ignorance, you will agree) is to seek answers in vain but claim God couldn't have done it.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge.
Stupidity, is to maintain supportive of a single answer to all questions (God) which arose from ignorance when many if not most all past questions have been found to answered more reasonably and rationally by science and continue to be explored and questioned more deeply. Questions we ask are best answered by "We don't know" until which time we find an answer, NOT God did it.
While I can not claim that God couldn't have done it, I find no need to insert a God when we have evidence that Gods have been a creation by various human societies when knowledge was just beginning to be acquired, and primarily put to use as a means of control over members of those societies by other humans who claimed to have communicated with the Gods they had created.
 
Individual said:
Science continually attempts to increase our understanding of what exists, and often that knowledge becomes the source of new questions to seek answers to.
Yet you titled this thread "Proof" of God.
Click to expand...

Unwise opponents of Biblical truth have crossed the bounds of true science when illegitimately rejecting the biblical record of God's creation and forcing the equally illegitimate acceptance of human speculations in their place as scientific facts.
 
marke said:
Unwise opponents of Biblical truth have crossed the bounds of true science when illegitimately rejecting the biblical record of God's creation and forcing the equally illegitimate acceptance of human speculations in their place as scientific facts.
Click to expand...

What biblical truths have been illegitimately rejected, and what human speculations have taken their place as scientific facts?
 
Individual said:
What biblical truths have been illegitimately rejected, and what human speculations have taken their place as scientific facts?
Click to expand...
In an attempt to break through illegitimate objections to truth and facts due to long standing reliance upon misconceptions, let me address this issue from the standpoint of a question.

What right has science to disregard the possibility that unnatural forces of unknown origins were behind the origin of life and matter as we know it?
 
marke said:
In an attempt to break through illegitimate objections to truth and facts due to long standing reliance upon misconceptions, let me address this issue from the standpoint of a question.

What right has science to disregard the possibility that unnatural forces of unknown origins were behind the origin of life and matter as we know it?
Click to expand...

has it? or is it just no one has found evidence of that?
 
marke said:
In an attempt to break through illegitimate objections to truth and facts due to long standing reliance upon misconceptions, let me address this issue from the standpoint of a question.

What right has science to disregard the possibility that unnatural forces of unknown origins were behind the origin of life and matter as we know it?
Click to expand...

Science can only work with what nature provides us to examine. The knowledge science has brought us is put to great use by both those believe in God(s) and those who do not. Would the insertion of a God or Gods make a difference to the knowledge science has brought forth?

The question remains, what illegitimate objections to to truth and facts, and what biblical truths have been illegitimately rejected, and what human speculations have taken their place as scientific facts
 
blarg said:
making up an answer because your sick of the questions and want to ignore them probably isn't going to give you a correct answer
Click to expand...
God is an abduction, an empirical inference to the best explanation. As answer, "God" does not "ignore" the questions -- just the opposite.
 
blarg said:
if the universe needs to be created hows its creter manage to exist? if it exists because it can why can't the universe have the same property?

life just seems to be chemistry and physics so it seems that its just the nature of things to allow it since life exists. not sure why that is so but don't know why a god who ca make life would exist either or how that would work so same problem only no gods ruing around so we don't know if any exist


if consciousness can just exist their seems to be no reason it needs to exist in a god its not clear how that would work and ther don't seem to be gods so same problem

so mystery is not solved by gods if you don't know how they work and why they exist

if the universe needs to be designed why would a god not need to be designed if god dosent need to be designed why cant other things have that property?

same with complexity a god would be complex but it either needs a creter to make it or else complexity dosent require planed construction in the 1st place

causality seems to work on its own if you wonder why then why would it exist with a god

same with phenomena and noumena

you could plug in anything else for gods seems like it would be just as bad an explanation

a mindless red ball exists it causes all the stuff you listed to happen because that's how it is

nothing is unstable so it causes all those things you listed to happen because that's how it is

all the things you listed can exist because they can


so much for one and only just circular reasoning and special pleading to make a god of the gaps


these answers seem to be = to your god none of them seem particularly more likely to be true then the others ther all bull**** designed to let you ignore the troublesome question of the things you listed
Click to expand...
Your objection seems to rest on the one cavil: God cannot be an explanation because God is unexplained. Have I read you correctly?

But this objection, if it is your objection, simply asks for an infinite regress. An infinite regress explains nothing and slides into paradox to boot.
God is the unexplained explanation of everything. If you're uncomfortable with that, then you must resign yourself to the inexplicableness of everything. You seem to have done this. All the best.
 
Individual said:
Science continually attempts to increase our understanding of what exists, and often that knowledge becomes the source of new questions to seek answers to.
Yet you titled this thread "Proof" of God.
Click to expand...
Yes, "science continually attempts to increase our understanding of what exists." And yes, "often that knowledge becomes the source of new questions to seek answers to."
But scientism claims that science is the first and last word on existence, and this is overreach.
Yes, I entitled the thread "Proof of God," and that is what I essayed by translating modal logic into plain English, and it failed. So?
 
Angel said:
Your objection seems to rest on the one cavil: God cannot be an explanation because God is unexplained. Have I read you correctly?

But this objection, if it is your objection, simply asks for an infinite regress. An infinite regress explains nothing and slides into paradox to boot.
God is the unexplained explanation of everything. If you're uncomfortable with that, then you must resign yourself to the inexplicableness of everything. You seem to have done this. All the best.
Click to expand...

using a god of the gaps wiht spelcla plesidfng explains nothing

if something with a certain nature can exist without being created then nature needs no creatour it makes as much sense to say the universe can exist because its natural for it to

or if you would prefer something out side of the universe to be statically projecting the universe into being ther no particular need to give it a mind like a god it could just exist because thats its nature

or instead of an uncased god that just exist because you need it to you could just have an uncased universe that just starts existing in a certain way because you need it to


and or chaos/nothing could decay into self selecting stability wouldn't be any rules against it until those rules had already emerged

god is only 1 of multiple empty inexplicable explanations and your giving it extra properties such a hand wave dosent need
 
blarg said:
using a god of the gaps wiht spelcla plesidfng explains nothing

if something with a certain nature can exist without being created then nature needs no creatour it makes as much sense to say the universe can exist because its natural for it to

or if you would prefer something out side of the universe to be statically projecting the universe into being ther no particular need to give it a mind like a god it could just exist because thats its nature

or instead of an uncased god that just exist because you need it to you could just have an uncased universe that just starts existing in a certain way because you need it to


and or chaos/nothing could decay into self selecting stability wouldn't be any rules against it until those rules had already emerged

god is only 1 of multiple empty inexplicable explanations and your giving it extra properties such a hand wave dosent need
Click to expand...
You assert that "if something with a certain nature can exist without being created, then nature needs no creatour [sic]." Give us an example of such a "something."
 
Angel said:
You assert that "if something with a certain nature can exist without being created, then nature needs no creatour [sic]." Give us an example of such a "something."
Click to expand...

the universe could be such a thing


do you have this god of yours anywhere?
 
blarg said:
the universe could be such a thing


do you have this god of yours anywhere?
Click to expand...
The universe, you claim, can exist without having been created? On what do you base this conjecture?

"This god of mine" is this god of yours as well, though you cannot grasp this.
 
Angel said:
The universe, you claim, can exist without having been created? On what do you base this conjecture?

"This god of mine" is this god of yours as well, though you cannot grasp this.
Click to expand...

You claim that God can exist without having been created. On what do you base this conjecture?
 
Angel said:
The universe, you claim, can exist without having been created? On what do you base this conjecture?

"This god of mine" is this god of yours as well, though you cannot grasp this.
Click to expand...

the universe exists so same basis you use for god

and its just your god if its made up and you have not shown it to be real
 
blarg said:
the universe exists so same basis you use for god
Click to expand...
Here you acknowledge that god exists. Do you realize that?

blarg said:
and its just your god if its made up and you have not shown it to be real
Click to expand...
Here you backpedal and, taken with your first assertion, seem to be saying that while god exists, god isn't real.

Allow me to try to clear up this post for us. The universe is a physical existent (a thing that exists) with a nature (as required by the statement you made in the earlier post), but it is a physical existent with a nature that is in need of an explanation. The universe is precisely what man wants to account for. Now you claim it is uncreated. Fine. I asked you on what this claim of yours is based. You cannot reply simply that it exists. Yes, it exists. How did it come to exist?
 
Angel said:
The universe, you claim, can exist without having been created? On what do you base this conjecture?

"This god of mine" is this god of yours as well, though you cannot grasp this.
Click to expand...

God you claim can exist without being created on what do you base this?
BTW claiming that's the definition of God is NOT an answer but a cop out.
 
Angel said:
Here you acknowledge that god exists. Do you realize that?
Click to expand...
Clearly he didn't unless you are claiming God is just the universe without will, power or any Godly attributes. Ie God is a meaningless term


Here you backpedal and, taken with your first assertion, seem to be saying that while god exists, god isn't real.

Allow me to try to clear up this post for us. The universe is a physical existent (a thing that exists) with a nature (as required by the statement you made in the earlier post), but it is a physical existent with a nature that is in need of an explanation. The universe is precisely what man wants to account for. Now you claim it is uncreated. Fine. I asked you on what this claim of yours is based. You cannot reply simply that it exists. Yes, it exists. How did it come to exist?
Click to expand...

No he isn't you have failed despite your OPs claim (and all the other ones like it you have started) to prove God to exists
 
I'm with Lennon


God is a concept by which we measure our pain.
 
Angel said:
Yes, "science continually attempts to increase our understanding of what exists." And yes, "often that knowledge becomes the source of new questions to seek answers to."
But scientism claims that science is the first and last word on existence, and this is overreach.
Yes, I entitled the thread "Proof of God," and that is what I essayed by translating modal logic into plain English, and it failed. So?
Click to expand...

Is there a method other than science that has provided us with incontrovertible knowledge of what exists?
While I accept the fact that many questions have not been answered by science, and perhaps a great many never will be, I find "God" to be fallacious when no universally accepted definition of God exists.

The best answer about the existence of a God, IMO, was what I received from a Buddhist Monk when I asked if he believed such being existed and his words were simply "All that matters is how you live your life."

If you accept failure in "Proof of God" why not close this thread?
 
Angel said:
Here you acknowledge that god exists. Do you realize that?


Here you backpedal and, taken with your first assertion, seem to be saying that while god exists, god isn't real.

Allow me to try to clear up this post for us. The universe is a physical existent (a thing that exists) with a nature (as required by the statement you made in the earlier post), but it is a physical existent with a nature that is in need of an explanation. The universe is precisely what man wants to account for. Now you claim it is uncreated. Fine. I asked you on what this claim of yours is based. You cannot reply simply that it exists. Yes, it exists. How did it come to exist?
Click to expand...

nope just acknowledged the universe exists and made up some options i claim could be the cause( they all seem rather doubtful like your god claim) gods don't seem to exist the only thing you had going for you was your attempt to sell it as the only option without being able to explain how it works or show any sign of it existing

and iv come up with 3 options that make just as much sense that don't even add an extra all knowing all powerful mind to existence

reality always existed in some form, or reality stated to exist at some point , or something beyond the known universe without a mind is the cause of the universe

your incorrect interpretation has misled you into thinking i said god exists and then backpedaled

again 3 other explanation all as worthless as yours and all just as likely and sensible as saying god done it see above

it exists because it exists that's part of its nature same as saying that about a god

or it exists because it just started to exist because their was no rules against that prior to the universe coming into being

or something mindless outside of time and space as we know it happens to exist and its nature just happens to create this universe mostly the same as your god but without the awareness and maybe without the power to alter things in any way whatsoever
 
Spontaneous combustion did it.
 
marke said:
Unwise opponents of Biblical truth have crossed the bounds of true science when illegitimately rejecting the biblical record of God's creation and forcing the equally illegitimate acceptance of human speculations in their place as scientific facts.
Click to expand...

I'll ask again:
What biblical truths have been illegitimately rejected, and what human speculations have taken their place as scientific facts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom