Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The problem is that both sides of this issue are attempting to demonstrate their position with logic alone. Logic is like a hammer without nails or wood, a good tool but useless under the conditions. The statement "Humans have large, fluffy ears. I am a human. Therefore I have large, fluffy ears" is perfect logic but it only takes a glance in the mirror to demonstrate the maxim "Garbage in. Garbage out." In this particular discussion you can change that to "Nothing in. Nothing out."
We are operating in a total informational vacuum. There is no evidence to support either side. All we have is belief and assumption. You apply your unsupported assumptions to logic to demonstrate your point, they apply their unsupported assumptions to demonstrate theirs. What you end up with is lots of words and not a single supported conclusion.
You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.
Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles unsupported assumptions is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.
Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on. It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.
IMHO, the connection involves going back to the beginning of time.The problem is that both sides of this issue are attempting to demonstrate their position with logic alone. Logic is like a hammer without nails or wood, a good tool but useless under the conditions. The statement "Humans have large, fluffy ears. I am a human. Therefore I have large, fluffy ears" is perfect logic but it only takes a glance in the mirror to demonstrate the maxim "Garbage in. Garbage out." In this particular discussion you can change that to "Nothing in. Nothing out."
We are operating in a total informational vacuum. There is no evidence to support either side. All we have is belief and assumption. You apply your unsupported assumptions to logic to demonstrate your point, they apply their unsupported assumptions to demonstrate theirs. What you end up with is lots of words and not a single supported conclusion.
You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.
Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles unsupported assumptions is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.
Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on. It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.
You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God. You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith. This is not evidence, just belief.
IMHO, the connection involves going back to the beginning of time.The problem is that both sides of this issue are attempting to demonstrate their position with logic alone. Logic is like a hammer without nails or wood, a good tool but useless under the conditions. The statement "Humans have large, fluffy ears. I am a human. Therefore I have large, fluffy ears" is perfect logic but it only takes a glance in the mirror to demonstrate the maxim "Garbage in. Garbage out." In this particular discussion you can change that to "Nothing in. Nothing out."
We are operating in a total informational vacuum. There is no evidence to support either side. All we have is belief and assumption. You apply your unsupported assumptions to logic to demonstrate your point, they apply their unsupported assumptions to demonstrate theirs. What you end up with is lots of words and not a single supported conclusion.
You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.
Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles unsupported assumptions is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.
Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on. It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.
You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God. You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith. This is not evidence, just belief.
That I am a Christian that believes in evolution rather than a 6 day creation is another subject.
My current conception regarding the universe is that prior to the big bang, all matter and energy that exists today was confined to a relatively miniscule volume...likely spherical. Outside of that collection of all matter and energy must have existed a supernatural being that caused the big bang which created the space-time continuum. That something was God...the giver of life and all that is around us.
Ridiculously simplistic, but a start. Shoot me down with your version. What caused the big bang?
IMHO, the connection involves going back to the beginning of time.
That I am a Christian that believes in evolution rather than a 6 day creation is another subject.
My current conception regarding the universe is that prior to the big bang, all matter and energy that exists today was confined to a relatively miniscule volume...likely spherical. Outside of that collection of all matter and energy must have existed a supernatural being that caused the big bang which created the space-time continuum. That something was God...the giver of life and all that is around us.
Ridiculously simplistic, but a start. Shoot me down with your version. What caused the big bang?
Quite so. As I stated, my "theory" is just my opinion. I think that there had to be something outside of the collapsed universe that set off the big bang and caused the infinite energy to expand, cool, form molecules of the elements (hydrogen first) and develop into clusters that developed into masses with gravitational forces that interacted with each other and developed into what we now see thru the Hubbell telescope.IMHO, the connection involves going back to the beginning of time.You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption. I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.
Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles unsupported assumptions is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.
Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on. It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.
You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God. You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith. This is not evidence, just belief.
That I am a Christian that believes in evolution rather than a 6 day creation is another subject.
My current conception regarding the universe is that prior to the big bang, all matter and energy that exists today was confined to a relatively miniscule volume...likely spherical. Outside of that collection of all matter and energy must have existed a supernatural being that caused the big bang which created the space-time continuum. That something was God...the giver of life and all that is around us.
Ridiculously simplistic, but a start. Shoot me down with your version. What caused the big bang?
I have no idea what caused it. I have no information upon which to base a conclusion. However, my ignorance is not a demonstration of your knowledge. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and your beliefs. But that does not make them anything more than belief.
More likely you fail to understand these arguments.The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...
There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. This is how all claims are examined, and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.
Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.
What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.
So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?
I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
The most intelligent response on the thread. The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time. Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God. It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based. It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God. You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith. This is not evidence, just belief.
I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
The most intelligent response on the thread. The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time. Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God. It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based. It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
I agree. In the absence of evidence you might as well go with what feels right to you. That is a perfectly reasonable approach.
I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
The most intelligent response on the thread. The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time. Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God. It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based. It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
I agree. In the absence of evidence you might as well go with what feels right to you. That is a perfectly reasonable approach.
Thanks for both of these responses. The older I get, the more questions I have, and the more I wonder if my inability to have faith is something lacking in my own mind. I know many people with real and deep faith, and I envy them. Perhaps by the time I am ready to cross over, I will have clarity.
I am a firm believer that each of us is our own denomination because we are individual people and how we think, perceive, feel, experience, process our existence will have some commonality with others but is a totally unique existence just the same.
I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
The most intelligent response on the thread. The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time. Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God. It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based. It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
I agree. In the absence of evidence you might as well go with what feels right to you. That is a perfectly reasonable approach.
I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
The most intelligent response on the thread. The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time. Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God. It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based. It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
The most intelligent response on the thread. The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time. Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God. It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based. It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
But with all due respect, Foxfyre, the issue in this OP is not the personal experiences of fellowship with divinity, but the charge that the following arguments relative to the facts of existence and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not cogent:
The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails. —newpolitics
That charge, as I, and now Thunderbird, have averred, is false, bottomed on the new atheism's logical fallacies and misapprehensions of things.
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...
ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
I spent four intense years, among other things, studying all those arguments my friend. I read with interest the scholarly agreement with them and the disagreement with them. All that commentary I judged to be presented via honorable and learned people who possessed no ulterior motives in presenting it. The student is left to choose the argument that makes the most sense to the student.
So can syllogism be used to make an argument for the existence of God? Yes and no.
I did my damndest for most of two decades to explain away everything I had ever heard or been taught about religion. I studied all the great religions and found that every single one of them contains kernels of truth and every one of them comes up lacking when it comes to answering the great cosmic questions that we probably aren't intended to know.
I stripped away every component of Christian beliefs/teaching that did not absolutely have to be there and arrived at the bare bones of what, for me, is truth:
1. God is
2. God loves me
3. We are not intended to fully understand it at least for now.
And that is based on empirical evidence.
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...
ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
Are you aware that you cannot provide a syllogistic argument that absolutely proves that the universe exists? Yet, despite the obvious flaws in logic, you think that the mere fact that you can ignore it somehow proves something you want to believe.
Quite so. As I stated, my "theory" is just my opinion. I think that there had to be something outside of the collapsed universe that set off the big bang and caused the infinite energy to expand, cool, form molecules of the elements (hydrogen first) and develop into clusters that developed into masses with gravitational forces that interacted with each other and developed into what we now see thru the Hubbell telescope.
All I'm saying is that there was an outside cause to the expansion of the universe from a condensed starting point.
Again, this is conjecture on my part....not to be taken as positing that you are wrong if you don't agree.
God existed before time started. God set off the big bang.
