Logical proof for the existence of "God", or Why I'm not an Atheist

[edthecynic]

Irrelevant. If that question is really eating away at you, feel free to start another thread about it and let me know.

Since omnipotence is hardly irrelevant to a discussion of God, you obviously can't handle the fact that even God has natural limitations.

Beginning a phrase with "you obviously can't handle the fact that..." lets me know that you're a total prick, so thanks for the heads up.

Again, feel free to start another thread. This one is about Vast LWC's belief and I don't intend to hijack it.

The phrase actually began with "Since omnipotence is hardly irrelevant to a discussion of God" and since you misrepresented that it is no surprise that you stooped to insults which further prove "you obviously can't handle the fact that even God has natural limitations."

 

[edthecynic]

Why do you believe that a singularity is capable of omnipotence? Are black holes "gods"?

Why do you believe a God is capable of omnipotence?

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

God can't change the past? How do you know that?

Whether He can or can't He is still omnipotent. You just misunderstand what omnipotent means.

Please give an example of God changing the past. And if God can, please explain why God didn't go back and fix his screw-ups?

Since God can't, then God is not omnipotent. You just misunderstand what omnipotent means.

 

[Vast LWC]

Please give an example of God changing the past. And if God can, please explain why God didn't go back and fix his screw-ups?

Since God can't, then God is not omnipotent. You just misunderstand what omnipotent means.

I believe the stock answer to this would be "there are no screw-ups, it's all just part of a larger plan".

 

[Madeline]

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the universe at one time derived from a single infinitely dense particle.

Since such a particle would be a singularity (thus existing outside the boundaries of time and space), would contain all of existence, and would have "created the universe" then it would essentially be "God".

Now of course this is not the "God" that various religions have put forth, as an old man in the sky, sitting over us in judgement, but it is, for all practical purposes, "God".

Now this of course leads to the conclusion that we, as part of the universe, are then part of God.

Just a thought. And it's the main reason why I'm not an Atheist, but more of an Agnostic, as I simply do not know if said infinite particle was self-aware.

But hey, who's to say what amount of time six days actually is in the eyes of God?

What you've described is Deism, a belief that God exists (or existed), set the universe spinning and has pretty much ignored us ever since. The "blind watchmaker" approach to religion was quite popular with the Founding Fathers, who by and large were not Christians (despite what some would have you believe).

It's no more or less rational than any other argument in favor of the existence of God. Personally, I believe because I think only a God could have invented sex.

 

[edthecynic]

Please give an example of God changing the past. And if God can, please explain why God didn't go back and fix his screw-ups?

Since God can't, then God is not omnipotent. You just misunderstand what omnipotent means.

I believe the stock answer to this would be "there are no screw-ups, it's all just part of a larger plan".

Yes that would be the rationalization, but it doesn't speak well of an all-loving and all-knowing God.

 

[Newby]

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the universe at one time derived from a single infinitely dense particle.

Since such a particle would be a singularity (thus existing outside the boundaries of time and space), would contain all of existence, and would have "created the universe" then it would essentially be "God".

Now of course this is not the "God" that various religions have put forth, as an old man in the sky, sitting over us in judgement, but it is, for all practical purposes, "God".

Now this of course leads to the conclusion that we, as part of the universe, are then part of God.

Just a thought. And it's the main reason why I'm not an Atheist, but more of an Agnostic, as I simply do not know if said infinite particle was self-aware.

But hey, who's to say what amount of time six days actually is in the eyes of God?

What you've described is Deism, a belief that God exists (or existed), set the universe spinning and has pretty much ignored us ever since. The "blind watchmaker" approach to religion was quite popular with the Founding Fathers, who by and large were not Christians (despite what some would have you believe).

It's no more or less rational than any other argument in favor of the existence of God. Personally, I believe because I think only a God could have invented sex.

I'm curious as to where do you get that 'most' of the founding fathers weren't christians?

 

[Madeline]

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the universe at one time derived from a single infinitely dense particle.

Since such a particle would be a singularity (thus existing outside the boundaries of time and space), would contain all of existence, and would have "created the universe" then it would essentially be "God".

Now of course this is not the "God" that various religions have put forth, as an old man in the sky, sitting over us in judgement, but it is, for all practical purposes, "God".

Now this of course leads to the conclusion that we, as part of the universe, are then part of God.

Just a thought. And it's the main reason why I'm not an Atheist, but more of an Agnostic, as I simply do not know if said infinite particle was self-aware.

But hey, who's to say what amount of time six days actually is in the eyes of God?

What you've described is Deism, a belief that God exists (or existed), set the universe spinning and has pretty much ignored us ever since. The "blind watchmaker" approach to religion was quite popular with the Founding Fathers, who by and large were not Christians (despite what some would have you believe).

It's no more or less rational than any other argument in favor of the existence of God. Personally, I believe because I think only a God could have invented sex.

I'm curious as to where do you get that 'most' of the founding fathers weren't christians?

The term "Founding Fathers" usually refers to the signatories to the Declaration of Independence or Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, some 145 men, give or take.

Many historians viewed these men as having one or another Christian religious affiliation:


Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

But not everyone agrees.

"None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular."

I think it's fair to say the Founders had a real investment in The Enlightenment and its precepts, and that Deism probably did hold sway with most of them. But you're right, it's an unsettled question and I should not present my own POV on it as a factoid.

Mea culpa.

 

[Diuretic]

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the universe at one time derived from a single infinitely dense particle.

Since such a particle would be a singularity (thus existing outside the boundaries of time and space), would contain all of existence, and would have "created the universe" then it would essentially be "God".

Now of course this is not the "God" that various religions have put forth, as an old man in the sky, sitting over us in judgement, but it is, for all practical purposes, "God".

Now this of course leads to the conclusion that we, as part of the universe, are then part of God.

Just a thought. And it's the main reason why I'm not an Atheist, but more of an Agnostic, as I simply do not know if said infinite particle was self-aware.

But hey, who's to say what amount of time six days actually is in the eyes of God?

If there was a single infinitely dense particle then where did it exist? It apparently has dimensions which suggest it existed as an object, but an object has to exist – to the best of my knowledge anyway – in time and space. If this particle created what we call the universe then it must be that there is something outside what we call the universe.

Now I'm wondering how the particle got to be a particle.

Given the nature of the God hypothesis I don't think the particle can be considered God. Whatever created the particle has a better claim.

 

[Newby]

What you've described is Deism, a belief that God exists (or existed), set the universe spinning and has pretty much ignored us ever since. The "blind watchmaker" approach to religion was quite popular with the Founding Fathers, who by and large were not Christians (despite what some would have you believe).

It's no more or less rational than any other argument in favor of the existence of God. Personally, I believe because I think only a God could have invented sex.

I'm curious as to where do you get that 'most' of the founding fathers weren't christians?

The term "Founding Fathers" usually refers to the signatories to the Declaration of Independence or Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, some 145 men, give or take.

Many historians viewed these men as having one or another Christian religious affiliation:


Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

But not everyone agrees.

"None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular."

I think it's fair to say the Founders had a real investment in The Enlightenment and its precepts, and that Deism probably did hold sway with most of them. But you're right, it's an unsettled question and I should not present my own POV on it as a factoid.

Mea culpa.

How do you explain all the letters the founders wrote that clearly indicated they were Christians? How do you explain that a large percentage of them had seminary degrees and were in fact pastors? How do you explain the very first session of Congress? Do you know what they did for several hours before the start of it? This is all documented fact in the federal archives, it's not hard to find.

Where do you come by your information? I'd like to see it and check it out for myself.

 

[Madeline]

I'm curious as to where do you get that 'most' of the founding fathers weren't christians?

The term "Founding Fathers" usually refers to the signatories to the Declaration of Independence or Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, some 145 men, give or take.

Many historians viewed these men as having one or another Christian religious affiliation:


Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

But not everyone agrees.

"None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular."

I think it's fair to say the Founders had a real investment in The Enlightenment and its precepts, and that Deism probably did hold sway with most of them. But you're right, it's an unsettled question and I should not present my own POV on it as a factoid.

Mea culpa.

How do you explain all the letters the founders wrote that clearly indicated they were Christians? How do you explain that a large percentage of them had seminary degrees and were in fact pastors? How do you explain the very first session of Congress? Do you know what they did for several hours before the start of it? This is all documented fact in the federal archives, it's not hard to find.

Where do you come by your information? I'd like to see it and check it out for myself.

GROANS. *Smiles* O no, a history buff! I'll tell you what. Start a thread on this and I'll discuss it with you. In brief, many (some,a few, one wing nut, just me...take your pick) pundits perceive a great sympathy in the Founding Fathers for the concepts of the Enlightenment and an antagonism towards traditional Christianity. Deism is perceived by many (some,a few, one wing nut, just me...take your pick) pundits to have been a fundamental concept of the Enlightenment. The social relations of any Father with popular churches of the time notwithstanding.

 

[Newby]

The term "Founding Fathers" usually refers to the signatories to the Declaration of Independence or Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, some 145 men, give or take.

Many historians viewed these men as having one or another Christian religious affiliation:


Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

But not everyone agrees.

"None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular."

I think it's fair to say the Founders had a real investment in The Enlightenment and its precepts, and that Deism probably did hold sway with most of them. But you're right, it's an unsettled question and I should not present my own POV on it as a factoid.

Mea culpa.

How do you explain all the letters the founders wrote that clearly indicated they were Christians? How do you explain that a large percentage of them had seminary degrees and were in fact pastors? How do you explain the very first session of Congress? Do you know what they did for several hours before the start of it? This is all documented fact in the federal archives, it's not hard to find.

Where do you come by your information? I'd like to see it and check it out for myself.

GROANS. *Smiles* O no, a history buff! I'll tell you what. Start a thread on this and I'll discuss it with you. In brief, many (some,a few, one wing nut, just me...take your pick) pundits perceive a great sympathy in the Founding Fathers for the concepts of the Enlightenment and an antagonism towards traditional Christianity. Deism is perceived by many (some,a few, one wing nut, just me...take your pick) pundits to have been a fundamental concept of the Enlightenment. The social relations of any Father with popular churches of the time notwithstanding.

I love history, but I really hate when I read in the media about mistruths concerning the founders. So, I've tried to educate myself, which in this day is not easy. The best place to go is the actual letters and archives of their own words. Those don't prevaricate or lie. I'll agree with you that they had an open mind, it's obvious in how they structured the federal government. However, that does not mean that they weren't Christians, and I don't understand why secular people are always trying to deny that they were Christians. Also in evidence in a lot of their writings is the truth that they did not want religion completely removed from the government. There is much evidence that they relied on their faith to guide them through the tumultuous times that they lived in and during the founding of this country. The very first session of Congress was started with several HOURS of prayer.

The Aitken Bible.

Prior to the American Revolution, the only English Bibles in the colonies were imported either from Europe or England. Publication of the Bible was regulated by the British government, and required a special license. Robert Aitken's Bible was the first known English-language Bible to be printed in America, and also the only Bible to receive Congressional approval. Aitken's Bible, sometimes referred to as "The Bible of the Revolution," is one of the rarest books in the world, with few copies still in existence today.

On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a "memorial" [petition] to Congress offering to print "a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools." This is the text of that memorial:

To the Honourable The Congress
of the United States of America
The Memorial of Robert Aitken
of the City of Philadelphia, Printer

Humbly Sheweth

That in every well regulated Government in Christendom The Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament, commonly called the Holy Bible, are printed and published under the Authority of the Sovereign Powers, in order to prevent the fatal confusion that would arise, and the alarming Injuries the Christian Faith might suffer from the Spurious and erroneous Editions of Divine Revelation. That your Memorialist has no doubt but this work is an Object worthy the attention of the Congress of the United States of America, who will not neglect spiritual security, while they are virtuously contending for temporal blessings. Under this persuasion your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools, But being cautious of suffering his copy of the Bible to Issue forth without the sanction of Congress, Humbly prays that your Honours would take this important matter into serious consideration & would be pleased to appoint one Member or Members of your Honourable Body to inspect his work so that the same may be published under the Authority of Congress. And further, your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States, provided the same be in all things perfectly consonant to the Scriptures as heretofore Established and received amongst us.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After appointing a committee to study the project, Congress acted on September 12, 1782, by "highly approv[ing of] the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken." The endorsement by Congress was printed in the Aitken Bible:

Click the link to see the actual endorsement and read the entire text.

WallBuilders - Historical Documents - Aitken Bible

 

[Diuretic]

I wonder if the FF were simply not that interested in organised religion. I think that they were well aware of the history of the organised church (several of them) in the British Isles up to the time of the Revolution. It was a bloody mess and I mean bloody in the sense of blood. People were burned because they were Catholics or Protestants (or others) depending on who was in charge. People were denied the right to attend churches of their choice and were fined for simply being of a particular Christian denomination. And let's not forget the expulsion of the Jews by Edward I I think it was. If you were starting a new nation and were aware (and these were very well educated men) of English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh history you'd be sure to keep organised religion out of government.

 

[Anguille]

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the universe at one time derived from a single infinitely dense particle.

Since such a particle would be a singularity (thus existing outside the boundaries of time and space), would contain all of existence, and would have "created the universe" then it would essentially be "God".

Now of course this is not the "God" that various religions have put forth, as an old man in the sky, sitting over us in judgement, but it is, for all practical purposes, "God".

Now this of course leads to the conclusion that we, as part of the universe, are then part of God.

Just a thought. And it's the main reason why I'm not an Atheist, but more of an Agnostic, as I simply do not know if said infinite particle was self-aware.

But hey, who's to say what amount of time six days actually is in the eyes of God?

What if you don't believe in the Big Bang Theory?

 

[Anguille]

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the universe at one time derived from a single infinitely dense particle.

Since such a particle would be a singularity (thus existing outside the boundaries of time and space), would contain all of existence, and would have "created the universe" then it would essentially be "God".

Now of course this is not the "God" that various religions have put forth, as an old man in the sky, sitting over us in judgement, but it is, for all practical purposes, "God".

Now this of course leads to the conclusion that we, as part of the universe, are then part of God.

Just a thought. And it's the main reason why I'm not an Atheist, but more of an Agnostic, as I simply do not know if said infinite particle was self-aware.

But hey, who's to say what amount of time six days actually is in the eyes of God?

If there was a single infinitely dense particle then where did it exist? It apparently has dimensions which suggest it existed as an object, but an object has to exist – to the best of my knowledge anyway – in time and space. If this particle created what we call the universe then it must be that there is something outside what we call the universe.

Now I'm wondering how the particle got to be a particle.

Given the nature of the God hypothesis I don't think the particle can be considered God. Whatever created the particle has a better claim.

But how can anything be outside the universe if the universe is everything?

 

[Diuretic]

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the universe at one time derived from a single infinitely dense particle.

Since such a particle would be a singularity (thus existing outside the boundaries of time and space), would contain all of existence, and would have "created the universe" then it would essentially be "God".

Now of course this is not the "God" that various religions have put forth, as an old man in the sky, sitting over us in judgement, but it is, for all practical purposes, "God".

Now this of course leads to the conclusion that we, as part of the universe, are then part of God.

Just a thought. And it's the main reason why I'm not an Atheist, but more of an Agnostic, as I simply do not know if said infinite particle was self-aware.

But hey, who's to say what amount of time six days actually is in the eyes of God?

If there was a single infinitely dense particle then where did it exist? It apparently has dimensions which suggest it existed as an object, but an object has to exist – to the best of my knowledge anyway – in time and space. If this particle created what we call the universe then it must be that there is something outside what we call the universe.

Now I'm wondering how the particle got to be a particle.

Given the nature of the God hypothesis I don't think the particle can be considered God. Whatever created the particle has a better claim.

But how can anything be outside the universe if the universe is everything?

Dunno

This is where I get dizzy

Finite is easily understood, infinite isn't easily understood at all, hence my dizzy mindedness. I think the current state of human knowledge isn't up to this one. How can the universe be everything? How can it be infinite?

I need to lay down

 

[Gadawg73]

Let us look at the Founders of the US:
1. They opposed the crown. Why did they oppose the crown? The crown monarchs drew their power by declaring that God put them in power and that God was to be answered to. The Founders ran from that and declared God had nothing to dowith giving men the power. The people through laws gave men the power. Divine intervention in government was what the Founders opposed.
2. The Founders were radicals of their time. The religous power base in America at that time, the Anglican church, supported the TORRIES AGAINST the revolution.
3. The Founders were smugglers, distillers, womanizers, hard drinkers, slave traders and independent of a religous based theocracy on the European continent in most all other countries with the churches dictating affairs. They ran from that.
4. The US Constitution has no mention of God in it.
The Founders were Christians. However, they had the good sense to not allow religous influences ruin the start of a secular government.
Thank God for what they did.