The Existence of God

You're misinterpreting what I said, and drastically so.

It is impossible to provide evidence for the non-existence of something that doesn't exist. Therefore, it is irrational to say something doesn't exist (with exceptions, e.g. contradictions). Note in a previous post of mine I said I acknowledge the chance that there might be a God, however I don't believe in it due to the lack of evidence it should provide of itself.

On the other hand, someone who asserts that God exists must provide evidence for they are making a claim, and such a claim requires evidence to back itself up. Note: I have never once said "God doesn't exist" in this thread. I have only stated that I don't believe one does. I am not making a positive assertion, therefore I am not required to provide any evidence.

You say it's impossible for the Universe to exist without a divine creator. You do not know this. But how about you take this question hotshot, if everything requires a creator, what created God? If you say "he has always existed" then I see no problem with saying "the universe has always existed" either. Personally I find it more logical to believe that the universe has always existed rather than some divine being which provides no evidence of itself.

Your entire post is Argument ad Ignoratum. You don't know, so you're making things up to fill in the gaps of your knowledge. Note: because there is no explanation for how the universe exists, does not mean immediately that "God did it." Note: even though you may find the existence of such an entity comforting, that doesn't mean it exists.

I apologise to those who have intelligence enough to interpret this (you can tell who I'm NOT referring to) for any mistakes I may have made. It's 4AM and high time I went to bed.

Edit:

To put it simply: we don't know. What makes us different from you is we aren't MAKING SOMETHING UP to fill in the gaps.

 

I could say the great "Pink Unicorn" created the universe with equal validity as "God". But why make up fairytales in place of admitting that we don't know?

This is ultimately what it boils down to. Circular irrationality.

 

why????


also for the post above me is there a bible about this pink unicorn?

 

Why not?

Are you asking me if there are books about unicorns? I'm sure there are plenty. After all, the bible isn't proof of God, merely a collection of stories.

 

I do believe in God. But I don't feel the need to explain myself so I'll leave it at that. I know some people will argue with this but that's fine

 

This is a very easy question to answer; so easy that the basics of this debate are often overlooked. The answer to this is much more clear than someone saying i believe it because the bible says its true.

if ANYONE wants to talk about this via msn, I will gladly talk with them. once again, the clarity of god's existence is so clear, that you have to not think, in order to avoid reason's undeniable evidence to believe otherwise.

my email is [email protected]

 

I'm a nondenominational Christian

 

To answer this question we need to first establish common ground at the most basic level.

As humans we are naturally rational meaning we use our thoughts or we think about things to find meaning. To clarify this, we use reason to find meaning.

To go further it must be stated that some things are clear and those things are the basic things. if nothing is clear then there are no distinctions and no meaning.

Our thoughts are governed and have three laws. this is also called "Reason in Itself"
1. identity - "A" is "A"
2. non contradiction - "A" cannot be both "A" and "non-A" in the same time and same respect - we have distinctions between things, if we did not use this law there would be no difference between a watch and a horse.
3. excluded middle - either "a" or "non-a" - it is either a square or non square but if it is a square it cannot be any other thing other than the essence of "A"

----IF WE CANNOT AGREE ON THESE THINGS, WE CANNOT AGREE ON ANYTHING ELSE. THEREFORE IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE THREE LAWS, YOU ARE CONSIDERED IRRATIONAL AND YOU NEED NOT READ FURTHER. Everyone should have no problem accepting these three laws.

"Reason in its use"
1. Reason is formative, it is used to form concepts judgements and arguments which are the forms of all thought
2. Reason is used critically as the test for meaning
3. Reason is used to Interpret experience in light of ones basic belief
4. Reason is used to construct a coherent world and life view

Reason in us
1. Natural - it is universal, there is no chinese reason or american reason, it is the same at these most basic levels. if otherwise we would not be able to share any concepts judgements or arguments with another and have them understand it. it is the case that we can explain to someone a concept even though our languages are different
2. Ontological - Applies to being as well as thought. there are no square circles - in its essence a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square. you could change the definition but it still applies that you cannot merge the two concepts together. it is impossible and therefore does not exist
3. Transcendental - it is authoritative, you cannot question reason with reason. you cannot question it because it makes questioning possible (remember C,J, and A)
4. Fundamental - it is the source of mans greatest happiness and its disuse is the source of man's deepest misery. because we have to use reason to find meaning at the most basic level, to not use it means we don't have meaning and therefore self destruct.

Once again I would liek to point out that if you do not agree with these basic things, you cannot understand anything else, and there is no point in continuing. however if you are interested and just confused about a few things. pm me and we can chat.

The next question has to be about eternality
eternal is at a more basic level defined as always was, never had beginning and never will end. we need to apply this to the three common view points that separates culture and go from there.

1. nothing is eternal
2. something is eternal
3. all is eternal

you cannot go around this, these statements are more basic than any worldview and NEED to be answered.

1. Contradictory statements cannot be both true and cannot be both false
2. none is eternal's contradiction is "some is eternal"
3. if "none is eternal" then"
a. all is temporal
b. all had a beginning
c. all came into being
4. if all came into being, then being came into existence from non-being
5. being from non being is not possible
6. therefore the original "non is eternal" is not possible.
7. therefore its contradiction "some is eternal" must be true.

Now I don't think that anyone thinks nothing is eternal, the question now is is all eternal or some?

we need to ask if if the material world, the universe in its parts, and the universe as a whole is self maintaining.

If the material world is eternal (MATTER ENERGY AND SO ON..)
then it would be self maintaining.
because all is not self maintaining the material world is not eternal.
in general, the material world is highly differentiated, there is hot and cold, dry and wet, hard and soft, rock and sand. these differences interact iwth eahother. the reaction continues until sameness is reached and will remain the same when left to itself

if the universe in its parts is eternal for example the sun, then the sun would not burn out. the sun is finite in size and so are the stars. and infinite being is not finite. and when left to itself the sun will burn out. the universe in its parts is not eternal

the last part we can get to is is the universe as a whole eternal.
1. not enough mass to pull universe back in on itself meaning it will eventually reach a heat death.
2.even if there was enough mass to pull back in on itself, it would eventually reach sameness meaning force pushing out and force pushing in would reach equilibrium and stop moving.
3. true vaccum (empty of matter and energy) into false vaccum( empty of matter but not energy) is the same as being from non-being which is a contradiction.

necessarily you cannot hold to the universe as eternal and inflationary theories of the big bang.

therefore we realize that since matter and energy are not eternal, the opposite, something must be eternal must be true

since it is not matter or energy, I will call this being - GOD

 

In my defense, if you don't believe in aliens, ghost's, or "monsters", you're an idiot for believing in god.

Their's more proof of bigfoot, the lochness monster, and Alien's being real, but people tend to say "they don't exist" but those same people believe in god.

My opinion: I don't believe in god, but you never know.

 

AMF you can know you just arent thinking about it hard enough,

tell me what you believe in or how you know something

 

You can, in a sense, prove that something doesn't exist. The means to this would be showing that its existence is utterly incoherent.

Also, your opening statement does not match the rest of your post. A negative means saying something doesn't exist. If i disprove that it doesn't exist, I am proving that it does exist. It'd be best for you to change it.

 

You wouldn't be proving that something doesn't exist. You would be proving that not beyond fathomable logic, it is illogical.

It's a technicality. Though the two are related, they are not the same.

 

arya have you ever heard of reason being ontollogical? meaning that it applies to being as well as thought.

From your previous comment you said that you wouldnt be proving something doesnt exist, you just would be proving it beyond fathomable logic. Im saying if you cannot think of it, then it cannot be possible. so if you can prove something wrong using reason, it is wrong.

for example. do you think there is a square circle in your cupboard? think about the question a square that is a circle.
-using reason you can know that this is impossible to have because a square is a closed shape with 4 sides consisting of 4 right angles, a circle is a closed shape with no angles. using reason you know you cannot have a square that is a circle unless you change the definition. this is because the law of non contradiction states that a cannot be both a and non a at the same time and same respect.

do you understand that?

 

If they're was a god, i understand that we all have to die, but why so tragicly?

In my opinion, Theres no god, but if they're actually is one, he can suck me. hes doing a bad job atm tbh.

 

very interesting question. i personally do however.

 

When there's proof of a god. i'll beleive in him
until then.. no thanks

 

God is not capable of being proven in tangible terms. I'm not an expert on the proofs for god - and do not profess to be - but I am aware of that fact formerly stated. It's like trying to prove the existence of reality; because, as established, you can't prove something with a proof from that very thing. (i.e. Things are real, so reality exists) So how do you prove reality? The proof for the existence of god, if approached correctly, is the most difficult question ever posed. If you want an explanation, read some of the works from the great philosophers. I'm going to be reading Spinoza's view over the summer, though there are many more.

For now, however, it does not completely matter to me whether or not god exists, as I believe my religion is extremely important and meaningful in itself.

 

i dont know.

 

Why tryto carry on an intellectual thread on Sythe? The logic escapes me. It's entirely possible to have healthy, human discussions of scientific knowledge and faith-based knowledge -- though it usually helps to speak face-to-face with at least some artificial respect, if people can't be honest and friendly at once. I'm sorry, you guys just look silly abusing each other.

 

What's your point? While I admit in the last page or so this thread has deteriorated into rubbish, usually there is a fairly good discussion here.