Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[sealybobo]

The theory of biocentrism is something that I WANT to be true.

It is a political or ethical stance, not something that is either true or not true. Do you mean you want us to hold this stance? I do too.

 

[G.T.]

The theory of biocentrism is something that I WANT to be true.

It is a political or ethical stance, not something that is either true or not true. Do you mean you want us to hold this stance? I do too.

Just the part of it that states that our conscience doesnt die with our bodies. I hope/wish it were true, i want it to be true.....but dont believe in it.

 

[G.T.]

Damn, derideo is doing a one man job on my poster ratings today.

Good job man! Keep showering me with these gifts and I shall one day be: clean.

 

[sealybobo]

Damn, derideo is doing a one man job on my poster ratings today.

Good job man! Keep showering me with these gifts and I shall one day be: clean.

I would say 20 likes is worth more than believing the jesus story.

 

[G.T.]

Damn, derideo is doing a one man job on my poster ratings today.

Good job man! Keep showering me with these gifts and I shall one day be: clean.

I would say 20 likes is worth more than believing the jesus story.

Not sure this is relevant, but hell

 

[Derideo_Te]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

There is no credible empirical evidence for the existence of a "creator".

The empirical law of conservation of matter/energy establishes that the Universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another without the need for any "creator".

The possibility of beings with "godlike powers" in the Universe is a distinct probability however none of them would fit the definition of a "creator" as alluded to by religions.

 

[Justin Davis]

I asked you before but I will give it another try. Go back into any of his posts and show me one piece of objective evidence. If you actually have an open mind that would have been the first thing you would have looked for. Without it, you agree simply because it fits what you already believe. He's telling you you're right so it must be true.

I did that already. You must have missed it.

Yes, I did. Can you refer me to the post where you did that?

It's the one in which I deferred to M.D.R.'s post because he had already addressed it. You guys talked it about it too, so I stayed out of it. All you said is that the objective evidence for God's existence is not objective evidence. What are we supposed to do with that? Get you a new brain? I don't won't to be mean. But I think it's fair to say that you are being impolite when you don't think about the evidence or act like you don't understand what it is or maybe you don't know what objective evidence is though that doesn't make sense either. Define objective evidence.

 

[Justin Davis]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

There is no credible empirical evidence for the existence of a "creator".

The empirical law of conservation of matter/energy establishes that the Universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another without the need for any "creator".

The possibility of beings with "godlike powers" in the Universe is a distinct probability however none of them would fit the definition of a "creator" as alluded to by religions.

The evidence for God's is obvious and voluminous. The truth is that theists like me look at all the evidence. Atheists like you cherry pick among the ideas about the evidence and ignore everything else. The reason I know that's true is because atheists like you never acknowledge the truth about everything else. The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

There is no credible empirical evidence for the existence of a "creator".

The empirical law of conservation of matter/energy establishes that the Universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another without the need for any "creator".

The possibility of beings with "godlike powers" in the Universe is a distinct probability however none of them would fit the definition of a "creator" as alluded to by religions.

The evidence for God's is obvious and voluminous. The truth is that theists like me look at all the evidence. Atheists like you cherry pick among the ideas about the evidence and ignore everything else. The reason I know that's true is because atheists like you never acknowledge the truth about everything else. The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?

Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.

The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Damn, derideo is doing a one man job on my poster ratings today.

Good job man! Keep showering me with these gifts and I shall one day be: clean.

You are welcome and those "thanks" are because you saved me the time and trouble of posting the same things myself.

 

[Justin Davis]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else. Actually you guys run from everything else. That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble. The issue on this OP is the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.

 

[G.T.]

Let's add onto the cogito ergo sum

My dick has a mind of its own.

Therefore, it exists.








fight me!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's add onto the cogito ergo sum

My dick has a mind of its own.

Therefore, it exists.








fight me!

 

[sealybobo]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else. Actually you guys run from everything else. That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble. The issue on this OP is the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.

You mean like how you believe miracles are acts of god? We don't believe in miracles and we have explained to you many times why miracles don't exist but you just ignore those rational arguments and continue to believe ancient stories that are impossible.

Or do you mean Revelations? What evidence do we ignore? I'll explain why we did not ignore that evidence, that evidence just had holes in it.

Some religions have religious texts which they view as divinely or supernaturally revealed or inspired. For instance, Orthodox Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that the Torah was received from Yahweh on biblical Mount Sinai, and Muslims believe the Quran to have been revealed to Mohammed word by word and letter by letter. In Hinduism, some Vedas (books) "not human compositions", and are supposed to have been directly revealed, and thus are called śruti, "what is heard". Most Christians believe that the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God. The 15,000 handwritten pages produced by the mystic Maria Valtorta were represented as direct dictations from Jesus, while she attributed The Book of Azariah to her guardian angel.[3] Aleister Crowley stated that The Book of the Law had been revealed to him by three Egyptian deities.

In the Abrahamic religions, the term is used to refer to the process by which God reveals knowledge of himself, his will, and his divine providence to the world of human beings.[6] In secondary usage, revelation refers to the resulting human knowledge about God, prophecy, and other divine things. Revelation from a supernatural source plays a less important role in some other religious traditions such as Taoism and Confucianism.

 

[sealybobo]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else. Actually you guys run from everything else. That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble. The issue on this OP is the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.

Various concepts of prophecy are found throughout all of the world's religions and cults. To a certain degree prophecy can be an integral concept within any religion or cult. The term has found deep usage in the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i along with many others.

 

[Justin Davis]

Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.

The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.

Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy? I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.

 

[sealybobo]

Prophecies fulfilled. Perhaps Jesus knew of this prophecy when he started his cult, or perhaps when they made up the story of Jesus 80-150 years after his death, they purposely picked this date so it would all align. Self fulfilling prophecy.

700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah

500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after

In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver,

Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution.

I could go on and on. Point is, whether it be 80 years after Jesus or in the imes when the Pope's re wrote/edited the bible, of course they would write in all these prophecies.

Show me a prophet today who can predict something for all of us to see. On this day at this time something miraculous is going to happen.

All they are doing is telling you that prophecies were fulfilled and that big ones will be in the future.

Plus they make a lot of vague no brainer prophecies like I've heard that the end of times will start center around America, then Europe and then Russia and then Israel. So one of those prophecies is going to look promising whenever a war happens anywhere because they have their bases covered.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.

I am a probablist. There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know. But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God. Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.

I've been on both sides of the issue, done a lot of research, talked with a lot of atheists, watched a lot of debates between the two sides, studied history and have concluded that there is no god.

I've heard the eye witness testimonies, talked to many people who firmly believe, and in the end I don't believe. Not only do I not believe, I don't think it's necessarily good for people. And I know it is good for some people, but even if it is, a lie is still a lie.

So if you are on a message board arguing with atheists, don't cry about us showing contempt when we express our opinions. We never get emotional about it. As scientists we just see how insane the notion of god is, especially with all the lies in all the religious books from the Koran to the Old to the New Testaments to the Mormons and so on.

This is what theists do. They say you'll go to hell. They ask you why you are so angry. Just the fact that you are wrong about us being angry or evil is even more proof to us how fos you people all are.

I think the masses are really stupid. Stupid when it comes to politics for sure. They've handed our country and government over to the corporations. Anyways, I use to debate politics but then I realized that if people are dumb enough to believe in gods, they'll believe anything the politicians tell them. People with blind faith can be convinced of anything. Global warming doesn't exist, we need to invade iraq, we need to send jobs overseas and give the rich tax breaks and then cry "we don't have the money" when it goes bust and then convince those very same people it wasn't you who screwed up the economy. If people believe in invisible men what won't they believe, right?

Have you ever asked yourself why you, a non believer, keep coming to these threads? I have never told you or another soul that you are going to hell for your non beliefs--I imagine 90% of the Christians posting on message boards have never told you that either. I don't know ANY Christian, except maybe the extreme leftists, who believe everything politicians tell them and even those only believe what leftist politicians tell them. Yet you hold all these notions about what presumable 'all' of us think, believe, say, whatever.

Why is that? What is it that compels you to care? What draws you to threads like this? Why do you give a tinkers dam about what I or any other person of faith thinks about anything? What force pushes you to try to destroy somebody else's faith?

Have you ever wondered about that?

 

[MaxGrit]

Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am

Exodus 3

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”

And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

This is not proof of a Biblical God.

You had to have known that, though.

You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you.

Cop-out, and naked assertion.

I understand what was written, I do not consider it logical, n'or proof.

Nothing comes from nothing is not proven, it's simply something we've yet to witness.

I already stated that very few people will be able to understand the proof of God's name, I Am.

You understand the written words but you can't understand why the proof works.

You simply cannot know the hidden truths that makes I Am the best proof. Only God can show you those hidden truths and bring you to true understanding. Therefore, you should pray to God for understanding.

 

[Justin Davis]

The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.

This doesn't make sense. The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists. He believes God exists. Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence. That's just sick. Some of you guys are crazy. You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is. That's not my problem. The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP. You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all. You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking. That's sick. The evidence for God's existence is empirical. The evidence is not subject to scientific verification. It's only subject to reason. The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence. When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science. That's sick. What's the evidence for atheism? Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief. That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience. Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else. Actually you guys run from everything else. That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble. The issue on this OP is the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.

You mean like how you believe miracles are acts of god? We don't believe in miracles and we have explained to you many times why miracles don't exist but you just ignore those rational arguments and continue to believe ancient stories that are impossible.

Or do you mean Revelations? What evidence do we ignore? I'll explain why we did not ignore that evidence, that evidence just had holes in it.

Some religions have religious texts which they view as divinely or supernaturally revealed or inspired. For instance, Orthodox Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that the Torah was received from Yahweh on biblical Mount Sinai, and Muslims believe the Quran to have been revealed to Mohammed word by word and letter by letter. In Hinduism, some Vedas (books) "not human compositions", and are supposed to have been directly revealed, and thus are called śruti, "what is heard". Most Christians believe that the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God. The 15,000 handwritten pages produced by the mystic Maria Valtorta were represented as direct dictations from Jesus, while she attributed The Book of Azariah to her guardian angel.[3] Aleister Crowley stated that The Book of the Law had been revealed to him by three Egyptian deities.

In the Abrahamic religions, the term is used to refer to the process by which God reveals knowledge of himself, his will, and his divine providence to the world of human beings.[6] In secondary usage, revelation refers to the resulting human knowledge about God, prophecy, and other divine things. Revelation from a supernatural source plays a less important role in some other religious traditions such as Taoism and Confucianism.