Is There A God?

[Divine Wind]

Well...it would be rather pointless for me to speak out against atheists, don't you think? I'm not an atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Agnostics? Anyone who believes as you do? Again, this transcends religion. It could be anything.

 

[Divine Wind]

"The account of Adam and Eve is allegorical", you may think so, but others don't, as the bible was written as a true account. Anyways, you're all over the map with what you pick and choose. So you're not a good example of a theist, you're too messed up.

Correct. Same take it as straight fact. I don't, yet you claimed I did. Why?

Speaking of someone being all over the map, you're an expert, dude.

 

[Czernobog]

Well...it would be rather pointless for me to speak out against atheists, don't you think? I'm not an atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Agnostics? Anyone who believes as you do? Again, this transcends religion. It could be anything.

Wytch. From a philosophical perspective I acknowledge agnosticism, not because I doubt the existence of divinity, but because I am aware that my position on the existence of such cannot be definitively proven.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Mudda]

"The account of Adam and Eve is allegorical", you may think so, but others don't, as the bible was written as a true account. Anyways, you're all over the map with what you pick and choose. So you're not a good example of a theist, you're too messed up.

Correct. Same take it as straight fact. I don't, yet you claimed I did. Why?

Speaking of someone being all over the map, you're an expert, dude.

I was replying to ding, not you. Don't be so grumpy.

 

[ding]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

The problem, as Sartre pointed out, is that both Aristotle's "Prime Mover", and Aquinas' "First Cause" (variations of the same theme) rely on the premise that the Universe is ordered, and purposeful. Which means that, in order to accept their "proofs", one need also accept their opening presupposition, for which they offer no proof whatsoever. They completely discount the "shit happens" factor in the universe. Sometimes things just happen. There is no reason, or evidence to presume that the universe is either ordered, or has meaning, or purpose.

Descartes' ontological proof, on the other hand is not evidence of any sort of the existence of God. In fact, his entire premise for proving of the self is the presupposition that "God" exists, and that, in fact, that God is evil, whose sole purpose is to deceive humanity. His entire argument for god is that existence "necessitates" the existence of divinity, without ever offering any actual evidence to support that necessity.

The purpose of the universe is to create beings that know and create. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. As cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good. We know from our own experiences that men do evil not for evil's sake but for the sake of their own good. We know from our own experiences that we prefer good over evil. We know from our own experiences that when we violate the moral law we rationalize that we didn't, but we never abandon the concept. We know we live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything does happen for a reason and everything is connected. When what we perceive as bad happens there is something good that comes from it.

The proof of the first cause can be found in the proof of reality. There is a final state of fact for all things. Once the final state of fact is discovered it will be known that it was always true and will always be true. In effect... it is eternal. Therefore, God is both truth and reality. To say it differently as it was first said... I am.

There are many flaws in your argument, but let's start with your proclamation that there are no "uncaused" events in the universe. We know no such thing, and such a claim cannot be proven. What, in fact, can be proven, is that there are, and have been, many events in the universe for which no cause has been discovered. Hence your entire argument proceeds from a flawed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I disagree. What you just wrote is that we do not understand the cause in every event. In every other instance we have concluded there was a cause. There has never been an uncaused event that we are aware of.

 

[Czernobog]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

The problem, as Sartre pointed out, is that both Aristotle's "Prime Mover", and Aquinas' "First Cause" (variations of the same theme) rely on the premise that the Universe is ordered, and purposeful. Which means that, in order to accept their "proofs", one need also accept their opening presupposition, for which they offer no proof whatsoever. They completely discount the "shit happens" factor in the universe. Sometimes things just happen. There is no reason, or evidence to presume that the universe is either ordered, or has meaning, or purpose.

Descartes' ontological proof, on the other hand is not evidence of any sort of the existence of God. In fact, his entire premise for proving of the self is the presupposition that "God" exists, and that, in fact, that God is evil, whose sole purpose is to deceive humanity. His entire argument for god is that existence "necessitates" the existence of divinity, without ever offering any actual evidence to support that necessity.

The purpose of the universe is to create beings that know and create. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. As cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good. We know from our own experiences that men do evil not for evil's sake but for the sake of their own good. We know from our own experiences that we prefer good over evil. We know from our own experiences that when we violate the moral law we rationalize that we didn't, but we never abandon the concept. We know we live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything does happen for a reason and everything is connected. When what we perceive as bad happens there is something good that comes from it.

The proof of the first cause can be found in the proof of reality. There is a final state of fact for all things. Once the final state of fact is discovered it will be known that it was always true and will always be true. In effect... it is eternal. Therefore, God is both truth and reality. To say it differently as it was first said... I am.

There are many flaws in your argument, but let's start with your proclamation that there are no "uncaused" events in the universe. We know no such thing, and such a claim cannot be proven. What, in fact, can be proven, is that there are, and have been, many events in the universe for which no cause has been discovered. Hence your entire argument proceeds from a flawed premise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. I disagree. What you just wrote is that we do not understand the cause in every event. In every other instance we have concluded there was a cause. There has never been an uncaused event that we are aware of.

You may conclude that, but such a conclusion lacks reason, and foundation. One does not draw conclusions without evidence. Thus to claim causality without evidence is presumptive, and logically flawed. Hence, your argument is based on a logically flawed premise.

There have been many events which have no known causes. There is no known cause for the combining of the chemicals, in the exact combination necessary for the formation of life. There is no known cause for the initial expansion of the universe. There is no known cause for any of a number of mutations in various species, including humanity.

For instance, explain the cause for the existence of the appendix.

To claim that there are causes "that we don't understand" is just an excuse for attempting to impose order on a chaotic universe.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[BreezeWood]

.
The Triumph of Good vs Evil is evidence there is an Almighty in Spiritual terms whether they are the origin of the universe or not.

.

"The Triumph of Good vs Evil"? Really? And, by what standards do you propose that "Good is Triumphing over Evil"?

.

And, by what standards do you propose that "Good is Triumphing over Evil"?

it's not at best there is a draw in time however one will triumph over the other one will cease to exist there will become purity of one type or another. for an individual that reaches completion, a Sabbath.

.

Ummm...okay...If I'm unpacking that correctly, then the obvious question becomes how does one define the terms? How is "Good" defined? How is "Evil"?

.

Ummm...okay...If I'm unpacking that correctly, then the obvious question becomes how does one define the terms? How is "Good" defined? How is "Evil"?

Is There A God?


without an ability to accomplish purity or to reach an apex there would not exist the above question despite the contrary of scriptural religion ... becoming one or the other or at least following their paths despite your question is the only way of knowing.


.

 

[ding]

You may conclude that, but such a conclusion lacks reason, and foundation.

Are you kidding? Cause and effect is fundamental to all natural science. In fact, it is the foundation upon which science is laid. To say that cause and effect lacks reason and foundation is ridiculous.

Causality (physics) - Wikipedia

One does not draw conclusions without evidence.

Exactly. What evidence do you have that proves an uncaused event has happened? Because I can list cause and effects all day long.

Thus to claim causality without evidence is presumptive, and logically flawed.

Sure, so go ahead and tell me what evidence you have that proves that things magically happen without a cause. Because I can provide evidence of events of which did have causes all day long.

Hence, your argument is based on a logically flawed premise.

No. It is your argument that is logically flawed. My argument is based on evidence. My argument is based on natural laws. My argument is based on cause and effect which is the foundation of all natural sciences.

There have been many events which have no known causes.

Just because you don't know the cause does not mean there was not one. Even what we don't know can still be bounded.

There is no known cause for the combining of the chemicals, in the exact combination necessary for the formation of life.

And that still does not prove that there wasn't a cause. Are you arguing for a special act of God here?

There is no known cause for the initial expansion of the universe.

And that still does not prove that there wasn't a cause. Are you arguing for a special act of God here?

In November of 1919, at the age of 40, Albert Einstein became an overnight celebrity, thanks to a solar eclipse. Eddington’s experiment had confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected (effect) by the gravity of the sun (cause) in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways. General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so. That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

There is no known cause for any of a number of mutations in various species, including humanity.

And that still does not prove that there wasn't a cause. Are you arguing for a special act of God here?

The cause and effect of single every physical phenomenon since the creation of the universe has been controlled by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. To believe in anything else must mean that you believe in magic.

 

[Divine Wind]

Wytch. From a philosophical perspective I acknowledge agnosticism, not because I doubt the existence of divinity, but because I am aware that my position on the existence of such cannot be definitively proven.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Seriously? And you sit by while your friends belittle those who believe in "Sky Daddy"? FWIW, I don't believe in magic or other supernatural phenomena. My best guess is it's against the rules of the game.

 

[Czernobog]

You may conclude that, but such a conclusion lacks reason, and foundation.

Are you kidding? Cause and effect is fundamental to all natural science. In fact, it is the foundation upon which science is laid. To say that cause and effect lacks reason and foundation is ridiculous.

Causality (physics) - Wikipedia

One does not draw conclusions without evidence.

Exactly. What evidence do you have that proves an uncaused event has happened? Because I can list cause and effects all day long.

Thus to claim causality without evidence is presumptive, and logically flawed.

Sure, so go ahead and tell me what evidence you have that proves that things magically happen without a cause. Because I can provide evidence of events of which did have causes all day long.

Hence, your argument is based on a logically flawed premise.

No. It is your argument that is logically flawed. My argument is based on evidence. My argument is based on natural laws. My argument is based on cause and effect which is the foundation of all natural sciences.

There have been many events which have no known causes.

Just because you don't know the cause does not mean there was not one. Even what we don't know can still be bounded.

There is no known cause for the combining of the chemicals, in the exact combination necessary for the formation of life.

And that still does not prove that there wasn't a cause. Are you arguing for a special act of God here?

There is no known cause for the initial expansion of the universe.

And that still does not prove that there wasn't a cause. Are you arguing for a special act of God here?

In November of 1919, at the age of 40, Albert Einstein became an overnight celebrity, thanks to a solar eclipse. Eddington’s experiment had confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected (effect) by the gravity of the sun (cause) in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways. General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so. That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

There is no known cause for any of a number of mutations in various species, including humanity.

And that still does not prove that there wasn't a cause. Are you arguing for a special act of God here?

The cause and effect of single every physical phenomenon since the creation of the universe has been controlled by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. To believe in anything else must mean that you believe in magic.

You keep wanting to inject divinity where none is needed - "special act of God". It is you who is trying to impose order where there is none. No "special act of God" is necessary, because in a random universe sometimes shit just happens.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Divine Wind]

I was replying to ding, not you. Don't be so grumpy.

Correct and I was replying to you. Don't be grumpy.

 

[Czernobog]

Wytch. From a philosophical perspective I acknowledge agnosticism, not because I doubt the existence of divinity, but because I am aware that my position on the existence of such cannot be definitively proven.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Seriously? And you sit by while your friends belittle those who believe in "Sky Daddy"? FWIW, I don't believe in magic or other supernatural phenomena. My best guess is it's against the rules of the game.

I don't sit by, and do that. "The Magic Man in the Sky" mythology is no less rational than my acceptance of natural magick. I only become mocking when fanatics insist that any one mythology is absolute, rational, and beyond doubt.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[skye]

Yes there is a GOD.

HE Hides well though.....

too well....

 

[Divine Wind]

You keep wanting to inject divinity where none is needed - "special act of God". It is you who is trying to impose order where there is none. No "special act of God" is necessary, because in a random universe sometimes shit just happens.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you believe in Magick?

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't sit by, and do that. "The Magic Man in the Sky" mythology is no less rational than my acceptance of natural magick. I only become mocking when fanatics insist that any one mythology is absolute, rational, and beyond doubt.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you are insisting there can't be an all powerful being, only "natural magick".

It's possible this "natural magick" is from a single unifying force of which we are all a part. Another term some people use for this force is "God".

 

[Czernobog]

You keep wanting to inject divinity where none is needed - "special act of God". It is you who is trying to impose order where there is none. No "special act of God" is necessary, because in a random universe sometimes shit just happens.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you believe in Magick?

Sure I do. However, I make no attempt to suggest that my belief is any more rational, or beyond questioning than any other. My problem comes when anyone claims to have absolute proof of the existence of something that cannot be proven.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

Genesis is about many things, yes, but it is not about the beginning of the creation of the universe or solar system or life on earth.

If you think it is about the Creation, literally, even though it is impossible that anyone living 6000 years ago would have known anything about the subject, what it is actually about will continue to remain hidden from you.

So you admit that the stories in the bible are full of lies. Good for you.

No, the bible is not full of lies anymore than the story about the pied piper is full of lies.

Like in any fairy tale, myth or fable that was written specifically for instruction, the bible is a treasure trove of hidden knowledge and wisdom conveyed through fantastical stories that conceal subjects and issues that are not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

OK, so you admit that you don't know what the stories are actually about.

Goody for you.

If you want to know what any given story is actually about, all that you have to do is ask.


BTW, I never said that the earth is 6000 years old.

Pay attention!

So god told Adam not to bang the girl and to stay in homo heaven with him. So Adam did the girl and was tossed. What's that story really about?

And how old is the world according to you?

The account of Adam and Eve is allegorical. It is the account of how man knows right from wrong and when he violates it he rationalizes that he didn't violate it, but he never abandons the concept of right and wrong. We've had this discussion before. The only reason you are still having it is because you condemn respect for anyone who believes in God, you believe yourself to be superior to them and because it pleases you to "try" to make fun of them. Thus proving that, you have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. See my signature below.

"The account of Adam and Eve is allegorical", you may think so, but others don't, as the bible was written as a true account. Anyways, you're all over the map with what you pick and choose. So you're not a good example of a theist, you're too messed up.

What others believe or don't believe has no bearing on me. The same thing applies to what they say and do. The only thing that has a bearing on me are the things I think, say and do. I'm ok with you believing anything you want about me. You have your own movie playing in your head; you are the writer, director and narrator. Your beliefs are clouded by your bias. You do not speak with integrity; you take the beliefs of others personally; you make assumptions which fit your narrative; and you don't always do your best.

 

[ding]

You keep wanting to inject divinity where none is needed - "special act of God". It is you who is trying to impose order where there is none. No "special act of God" is necessary, because in a random universe sometimes shit just happens.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There is order everywhere. It is all around you. Order from chaos. The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation was very chaotic - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - and occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles. The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust). This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. All of these processes followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements and chemical compounds that we see today.These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state (i.e. order). During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. The universe did not construct itself randomly. It followed natural laws. Each phase was pre-destined to occur by the laws of nature which came into existence at the time space and matter were created.

However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage. Thereby starting this process all over again. At every step of the way matter complexified into order until at last beings that know and create began to exist. Thus, the universe began to know itself in the ultimate act of order from chaos.

But make no mistake, beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created.

 

[ding]

You keep wanting to inject divinity where none is needed - "special act of God". It is you who is trying to impose order where there is none. No "special act of God" is necessary, because in a random universe sometimes shit just happens.

Did you just randomly type that response? Or did you have a reason to type it? How many random things did you do today versus how many things did you do today that were done for specific reasons?

 

[ding]

You keep wanting to inject divinity where none is needed - "special act of God". It is you who is trying to impose order where there is none. No "special act of God" is necessary, because in a random universe sometimes shit just happens.

If you don't believe that everything is controlled by physical processes and the laws of nature, then I can only conclude that you do believe in special acts of God. We live in an orderly universe. It is orderly precisely because it follows the laws of nature. The randomness that you so dearly prescribe to is chaos. Out of that chaos, the laws of nature have created order. Things do behave exactly as we expect. That is order.

Order: the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.