• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

... irrelevance snipped...Identify what you've called my "unjustified assumption" in this thread.
Fish or cut bait, man.

Indeed, produce your immaterial, your god.

Show you know it. You can't because you don't.
 
But you avoid answering the key question. What exactly is this god that you, in particular, are talking about? An argument for the existence of god is insufficient as it stands. It even allows that the god concept does not have to be literally "real" to be of some sort of importance. Although I'm not sure how a concept, an idea, can be considered an objective part of reality except in the context of human societies. Our concepts of reality do not create reality, but are attempts to describe it. A concept can be useful, but an idea alone is ephemeral. The fact that we can all imagine things does not mean anything beyond that. If you think that a non-defined god is sufficient, I disagree. Higher power, supreme being, all really mean nothing without more details. What makes it higher and supreme? Higher than what? If we can all fill in in this blank god with whatever we want I don't see real value in that.
What exactly, huh? That pretty much says it all doesn't it? I mean, about our having nothing to discuss. I wished you well. Why not return the favor and put paid to this waste of time?

As to happiness, that is as vague as your god. No one is perfectly happy all of the time. Being happy because of a belief is no more viable than being happy because of a lack of one. Simply believing in something is not akin to happiness. Happiness needs reasons. You leave out all the details that would explain that. Why exactly are you happy? I am content in my view of things, but I don't expect it to be a source of happiness nor unhappiness. It is only a starting point.
It could be, judging from this post, that you may need a proof of the existence of happiness, David.
After all the New Atheist silliness encountered here in this thread, however, I'm done with offering proofs or arguments or reasons.
I think I'll just sit back and enjoy the feeding frenzy. Rea and Cephus have already kicked it off. Mach should be along soon. Peace.
 
Last edited:
Identify what you've called my "unjustified assumption" in this thread.
Fish or cut bait, man.
It's too funny that you think that you found that lever you were looking for in order to evade your problem but, it doesn't work. Your assumptions are what you failed to show. I've known for weeks what you have been digging for and it's pretty lame, although not unexpected, that you think that this weak come back is it.

You assume that your immaterial exists, your god. You cannot show it so you don't know it. Your philosophistry is about as complex as any absurd apologetics I have ever come across and you are busted. Literally no one except for your fellow deluded souls accepts that your rehash of Aquinas has any depth.

Produce your immaterial, your god. You can't show it because you don't know it.
 
... Upon rereading the text I think we have been discussing 2 different subjects.
The concepts I put forward were not concepts of God put concepts of things other than God. I was assuming that your post meant only your concept of God is rational and any concept without God is irrational. I now see you were actually calling my concepts God, though Istill dont see how they would be irrational. If I am incorrect please explain why otherwise we will continue to have a disjointed conversation.
...
You are correct, Quag. We have been talking past each other for fifty posts and more. Rather disheartening, no? Throw in a pack of hyenas yapping at my feet the while and you can imagine how discouraging this whole business has become for me.

Namaste.
 
You are correct, Quag. We have been talking past each other for fifty posts and more. Rather disheartening, no? Throw in a pack of hyenas yapping at my feet the while and you can imagine how discouraging this whole business has become for me.

Namaste.
Produce your immaterial and we can have a discussion, not my fault that you are flustered because you can't show it and therefore don't know it.
 
Produce your immaterial and we can have a discussion, not my fault that you are flustered because you can't show it and therefore don't know it.



Do you know what immaterial is?


Philosophy

Immaterial
spiritual, rather than physical.
"we have immaterial souls"

synonyms: intangible, incorporeal, bodiless, disembodied, impalpable, ethereal, insubstantial, metaphysical; spiritual, unearthly, supernatural


https://www.google.ca/search?source...b..0.10.852...46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.QVzmy6rXDvw



.....and, you're demanding that he produce it????



That's your set condition for discussion? :lol:
That's the funniest excuse I've ever read for wanting to cop out of a debate....or discussion!


I can just imagine - and understand - why Angel would be flustered!
I, myself, was stunned for a while! :lamo
 
Last edited:
REALITY CHECK

Do you recognize this man?

ngKnBSa.jpg

This is what an atheist looked like not so long ago

And not so long ago this is what an atheist sounded like:

Dostoevsky once wrote: “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted”; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse.

Lecture given in 1946 (Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, ed. Walter Kaufman, Meridian Publishing Company, 1989) (1946)

Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt to draw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position. Its intention is not in the least that of plunging men into despair. And if by despair one means as the Christians do – any attitude of unbelief, the despair of the existentialists is something different. Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view. Not that we believe God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope.

Existentialism Is a Humanism, lecture (1946)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre



Now Fast-Forward Fifty Years...

And get a load of the New Atheism


BpGUYmK.jpg


"Quick, send in the clowns...
Don't bother, they're here."



Th-th-that's all, folks!
Following the counsel of Captain Courtesy, Angel is lighting out for the greener pastures of the Religious Discussion subforum...

Thanks to Quag and devildavid for their civility

Namaste
 
Last edited:
It's too funny that you think that you found that lever you were looking for in order to evade your problem but, it doesn't work. Your assumptions are what you failed to show. I've known for weeks what you have been digging for and it's pretty lame, although not unexpected, that you think that this weak come back is it.

You assume that your immaterial exists, your god. You cannot show it so you don't know it. Your philosophistry is about as complex as any absurd apologetics I have ever come across and you are busted. Literally no one except for your fellow deluded souls accepts that your rehash of Aquinas has any depth.

Produce your immaterial, your god. You can't show it because you don't know it.

What's so funny is actually your "reasoning" that just because the metaphysical cannot be shown - gross! metaphysical and shown, in the same statement? hahahaha -

that, therefore he doesn't know it (which is again, an illogical statement, because you can know about something even if you can't physically show it).



Kindly set your emotions aside, and review what you just wrote above.


You are in Philosophy Section - understandably, you'll encounter a lot of philosophical reflections - (philosophical reflections - does that ring a bell?) Remember the NAS statement above?

Philosophical reflections are beyond science's realm!
We're dealing with the metaphysical (another term for immaterial), therefore.....show-and-tell, does not apply. :)


Either you don't know what immaterial is, or your thinking is so convoluted!
 
Last edited:
if hes going to keep saying its real why not

That's a childish response. You just threw reason out the window!
Read my 2 responses to William Rea above.....that should explain why I say, that's a childish stance.
 
You are correct, Quag. We have been talking past each other for fifty posts and more. Rather disheartening, no? Throw in a pack of hyenas yapping at my feet the while and you can imagine how discouraging this whole business has become for me.

Namaste.

So to try and get back on track will you explain why you consider my concepts irrational?
 
What exactly, huh? That pretty much says it all doesn't it? I mean, about our having nothing to discuss. I wished you well. Why not return the favor and put paid to this waste of time?


It could be, judging from this post, that you may need a proof of the existence of happiness, David.
After all the New Atheist silliness encountered here in this thread, however, I'm done with offering proofs or arguments or reasons.
I think I'll just sit back and enjoy the feeding frenzy. Rea and Cephus have already kicked it off. Mach should be along soon. Peace.

You are avoiding the key to it all. You refuse to even discuss why this god makes a difference. You don't really want to discuss god. you just want its existence accepted. How can anyone accept something without knowing exactly what they are accepting? A concept of god which allows us to flesh out this god in our own way also allows us to figure out that this god is just in our heads and is an idea, a metaphor. Maybe a useful one to some but not to others.

Why do you refuse to tell us about your god?

And do enlighten me, what is happiness?
 
What's so funny is actually your "reasoning" that just because the metaphysical cannot be shown - gross! metaphysical and shown, in the same statement? hahahaha -

that, therefore he doesn't know it (which is again, an illogical statement, because you can know about something even if you can't physically show it).



Kindly set your emotions aside, and review what you just wrote above.


You are in Philosophy Section - understandably, you'll encounter a lot of philosophical reflections - (philosophical reflections - does that ring a bell?) Remember the NAS statement above?

Philosophical reflections are beyond science's realm!
We're dealing with the metaphysical (another term for immaterial), therefore.....show-and-tell, does not apply. :)


Either you don't know what immaterial is, or your thinking is so convoluted!

Immaterial is something that does not exist except in our minds because we are capable of irrational thought. It exists, but it doesn't!
 
Immaterial is something that does not exist except in our minds because we are capable of irrational thought. It exists, but it doesn't!

Unfortunately.....your opinion flies against the NAS' view about it.


"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience.

Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html



Science cannot have any say about the metaphysical.
"Extend beyond science's realm - Science admits it has limited capability.
 
That's a childish response. You just threw reason out the window!
Read my 2 responses to William Rea above.....that should explain why I say, that's a childish stance.

if you want him to just turn over the experimental process he used to find that it exists then ok
 
Immaterial in are minds alone is no incompatible with that

Don't argue with me.

Complain to the NAS!
You say they're sprouting bs? You go set them straight.....
 
Unfortunately.....your opinion flies against the NAS' view about it.



https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html



Science cannot have any say about the metaphysical.
"Extend beyond science's realm - Science admits it has limited capability.

That doesn't contradict what I said. All that stuff is in our minds and has to do with value judgments. Science just doesn't make value judgments about human created values, morals, etc. It only attempts to explain how our brains might come up with them. Science does not deal with what we decide to value, only the mechanics of how we do it. But what we decide to value varies over time and in different societies. There are no objectively correct value or morals to hold. That is why we created religion, philosophy, literature, art, etc. They are all attempts to understand the human condition, but not one of them has the final answer.
 
Eight Reasons in Support of God’s Existence

(I) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.

(II) God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

(III) God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.

(IV) God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

(V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.

(VI) God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

VII) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.

(VIII) God can be personally known and experienced.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist.


And another example of the fact that first you must first believe in a god in order to accept there is a god.
Theses reasons are all based on the preconception of the existence of a god, and not a good reasons as to why there might be a god.
 
What reason can be given to a dismissalist? I respect your skepticism. Go in peace.

What reason can come from the biased . You have given many examples that you will start from a position that a god exists and from there go on to claim proof of gods existence. Do not blame me for dismissing bias but seek to correct that bias within.
 
Back
Top Bottom