Originally posted by Chessplaya548There are many philosophical issues concerning the existence of God. Some definitions of God's existence are so nonspecific that it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; while other definitions are apparently self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types. Arguments against the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Conclusions reached include: "God exists and this can be proven"; "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (theism in both cases); "God does not exist" (atheism); and "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism). There are numerous variations on these positions.
To believe in God means that you have to have faith that there is a God. I also believe that God does things that are not meant to be understood.
I used to be a non-believer, but I have been a witness to miraculous things that cannot be explained, therefore I have come to the conclusion that God allows us to understand things when we are ready to un ...[text shortened]... unctions or even the true concept of consciousness? Because He is not ready for us to know yet.
Originally posted by GinoJI have a question for you; which one method of reasoning that you listed, if proven, would you accept as truth supporting the existence of God? And furthermore, if one was to actually prove to you that there is a God (or if you already believe that there is) would one then be able to prove to you that God is Almighty, and if so, which method of reasoning that you listed could prove to you that He is Almighty?
There are many philosophical issues concerning the existence of God. Some definitions of God's existence are so nonspecific that it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; while other definitions are apparently self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types. ...[text shortened]... ws whether God exists" (agnosticism). There are numerous variations on these positions.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateRuibish. I was name calling because I'm a shallow worthless unbeliever.
He's only resorting to 'name calling' out of frustration. Very often the stubborn dogma we are confronted with by literal Christians makes any constructive debate impossible.
For example Ass...er, Acemasters assertion that Hell is literally and physically at the center of the Earth is undebatable. Not because he's right, but, because he won't bud ...[text shortened]... nd you will left apart from God for eternity.
Anything wrong with what I've said?
What's your problem?
No actually, you're absolutely right. This bored comprises, for the most part, a dialogue of the deaf.
I think I'm tolerant and open to be proved wrong. There are others of similar ilk from all persuasions of belief....and then there is a hardcore of bone headed bigots.
Pah
Originally posted by SharpeMotherIf there is a possibility that God exists, there is the same possibility that he does not.
I have a question for you; which one method of reasoning that you listed, if proven, would you accept as truth supporting the existence of God? And furthermore, if one was to actually prove to you that there is a God (or if you already believe that there is) would one then be able to prove to you that God is Almighty, and if so, which method of reasoning that you listed could prove to you that He is Almighty?
You can not find God by using logic.
Originally posted by GinoJA possiblity can be eliminated by proof.
If there is a possibility that God exists, there is the same possibility that he does not.
You can not find God by using logic.
What if one was able to prove to you that God DOES exist and that it's impossible for Him NOT to exist..? Which method would sufficiently convince you?
Originally posted by SharpeMotherIs that tangible evidence you are talking about? Or are you only referring to some sort of deductions based on other observations, i.e. indirect 'evidence'?
A possiblity can be eliminated by proof.
What if one was able to prove to you that God DOES exist and that it's impossible for Him NOT to exist..? Which method would sufficiently convince you?
Originally posted by ckoh1965That entirely depends on which method GinoJ choses to be sufficient evidence for him. At this point I don't even know whether or not GinoJ believes that there is a God - I may not have to prove to him that aspect. But as far as proving that God is Almighty - that is something that I probably could do using any sort of reasoning that he listed.
Is that tangible evidence you are talking about? Or are you only referring to some sort of deductions based on other observations, i.e. indirect 'evidence'?
1 edit
Originally posted by SharpeMotherWell, the fact is that there is simply no tangible evidence that God does really exist, eg God himself appears to prove His existence. One can only guess based on other observations, and no matter how you turn and twist the matter, at the end of the day, it's only a guess nonetheless.
That entirely depends on which method GinoJ choses to be sufficient evidence for him. At this point I don't even know whether or not GinoJ believes that there is a God - I may not have to prove to him that aspect. But as far as proving that God is Almighty - that is something that I probably could do using any sort of reasoning that he listed.
I look at the matter like this: This world, and us, and life and all other living things.... all of them are so unique. So special and complicated beings. And then of course there as so many things that science can't (yet) explain.
Maybe under a particular range of temperature, pressure, and in the presence of some particular atoms, these atoms can merge into molecules; which in turn merge further to form amino acids; and again weave together to form longs chains of polypeptides; weaving yet to form proteins etc..... and then at that very long process, you get actual flesh and blood and life. It might have happened this way over billions of years. Then the process of evolution over many more years to change shapes, bodily functions etc as these species adapt to their respective environments. All very plausible, you see.
I'm also inclined to agree that life happened as the above. But on the other hand, I am not totally convinced with such an explanation, because there is an element of chance in the equation. The process itself happened in maybe millions of steps and what we're essentially saying is that all those steps happened randomly by chance only. I think the possibility is there, but in my opinion, that possibility is just too remote for such a unique being to come about.... even though taking into account of millions of years for it to happen. It is something like a big explosion taking place in a printing factory, and then suddenly all the letters fell neatly into their respective places to form a dictionary. It may happen, yes, but I think the probability is just too remote.
Therefore, I'm inclined to think that even if life did happen through all those millions of processes to become what it is today, there must be a designer, instead of randomly. That designer put into effect which process should take place and which should not. Along the way, maybe mistakes happened and that would be discarded? Could it be that such a designer is God?
My idea about God is like the above. I have no evidence, mind. It is only pure deductions based on general observations. I can offer no proof of God's existence. I just feel strongly that there must be hands at works to make all of us possible.
But talking about religions, now that's another different matter altogether! I don't believe in any of them!
Originally posted by Chessplaya548What a cop out! This is the worst, sloppiest, most annoying answer anyone can possibly ever give, other than perhaps "there are some things we're not meant to know". It's just plain, simple, intellectual laziness. Why not go out, get a degree and a PhD and go do some experiments?!
I also believe that God does things that are not meant to be understood.
Originally posted by scottishinnzLOL!
What a cop out! This is the worst, sloppiest, most annoying answer anyone can possibly ever give, other than perhaps "there are some things we're not meant to know". It's just plain, simple, intellectual laziness. Why not go out, get a degree and a PhD and go do some experiments?!
Originally posted by ckoh1965Evolution is nothing like this at all!!!!
It is something like a big explosion taking place in a printing factory, and then suddenly all the letters fell neatly into their respective places to form a dictionary. It may happen, yes, but I think the probability is just too remote.
Evolution is more like a billion big explosions taking place in a billion printing factories, and anything which even slightly resembles a word being selected and retained, then other letters added randomly. The combinations which more closely resemble a word than the original are retained, whilst the ones which less closely resemble a word deleted. Of course, evolution has no "goal", and when I talk about some combination of letters resembling a word, that could be transfigured to some combination of amino acids, DNA bases or whatever that is more of less stable, or more fecund, or whatever you like.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWho decides what gets deleted?
Evolution is nothing like this at all!!!!
Evolution is more like a billion big explosions taking place in a billion printing factories, and anything which even slightly resembles a word being selected and retained, then other letters added randomly. The combinations which more closely resemble a word than the original are retained, whilst the ...[text shortened]... cids, DNA bases or whatever that is more of less stable, or more fecund, or whatever you like.
Originally posted by ckoh1965I agree with you about your analysis of evolution. It is simply too far out to be believable. But there is another reason not to believe it, though I apparently don't have to convince you of this.. Anyone who is an evolutionist, from what I've heard, has started the whole explanatory process how you did, describing an ideal circumstance such consists of pressure, temperature, etc. as well as the very base atoms that are required to make something. But they do not understand what "nothing" means. Something can't come from nothing. If they believe that temperature or pressure has always been, then they, too, are having faith.
Well, the fact is that there is simply no tangible evidence that God does really exist, eg God himself appears to prove His existence. One can only guess based on other observations, and no matter how you turn and twist the matter, at the end of the day, it's only a guess nonetheless.
I look at the matter like this: This world, and us, and life and all o ...[text shortened]... ligions, now that's another different matter altogether! I don't believe in any of them!
In addition, “religion” is a man-made system to explain their understanding of who God is. The Bible is not a man-made religion, though I’m sure you disagree with me about that. Obviously one would have to believe that the Bible is God’s written Word in order to believe that it is not man-made. How the Bible describes God, creation, logic, scientific elements, salvation etc, makes the most sense and is the strongest argument against all other beliefs. This is why I do not think it is possible for a human to have written the Book apart from God Himself showing him what to say.
So you believe that there has to be a creator (or designer) for everything that has been created, correct? Then what is your definition of who this god is? Is there a specific reason why you reject the God of the Bible as being the Designer?
Originally posted by ckoh1965What do you mean "who"? Who says there has to be a who? Is everything that dies murdered, or do some things die because they get caught in a snow drift, or can't runaway from a predator? Do atoms associate and dissociate with each other to be molecules because someone tells them, or can chemistry and probability take care of those things?
Who decides what gets deleted?
The point is that we don't need consciousness to select between rabbits that can run faster than foxes, and rabbits which can't.