-->
@fauxlaw
What I'm getting at is, how do you determine what is organized? How is the concept of "organized" not left up to individual interpretation?
What's your best argument for God's existence?
Posts
Total:
372
-->
@Sum1hugme
How is the concept of "organized" not left up to individual interpretation?
Simply by understanding what "organized" means, and not by leaving it up to individual interpretation. Organized [according to the OED]: a. transitive. To arrange into a structured whole; to systematize; to put into a state of order; to arrange in an orderly manner, put in a particular place or order, tidy.
One of the results of "organized" is to give purpose to what has been organized. It now has a specified [documented, if you will?] defined objective[s] to accomplish which cannot be accomplished without first "organizing."
-->
@Sum1hugme
I said on a similar topic a while ago - that I take the view that the philosophical argument is my favorite. Not necessarily a good one or the best - but it is my favourite.It is the agnostic. An agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." I think this beautiful statement is a perfect definition of self-contradiction. In other words, it philosophically proves God exists. It does not prove who God is or what his or her name is - but it is brilliant.I also think that the existence of evil is one of the best arguments for the existence of God. Without God, there is no evil or understanding of evil.Would you care share the philosophical argument? There are a number of them, so do you mean that the argument of gods existence as a moral standard for determining evil is your favorite philosophical argument?
As I said above - my favorite, although not the best, is the self contradictory statement of the agnostic. Agnostics argue that nothing can be known about the existence of nature of God. Logically, they are saying, the one thing we know about God is that nothing can be known about God. It is like the self contradictory statement people make about absolutes. There is absolutely no such thing as an absolute.
Both are philosophical - logical conundrums which actually prove the exact opposite of their assertions.
The relativist proves Absolutes exist.
The agnostic proves God exists.
I am not saying brilliant argument but truly my favorite.
-->
@Barney
Well that's cool man. So, would you consider like, stephen hawking surviving lou gehrig's disease for so long a miracle?
-->
@Sum1hugme
I have conflicting thoughts on something like that, as such diseases are evidence against God as the creator, and yet Stephen Hawking existing at all was so damned amazing!
18 days later
There is no vain imagining or clever reasoning of man that can undermine and overthrow The Truth.
The Truth is God.
-->
@Mopac
Richard Carrier has argued that the universe itself seems to be very ill-designed for life, because the vast majority of the space in the universe is utterly hostile to it. This is arguably unexpected on the hypothesis that the universe was designed by a god, especially a personal god. Carrier contends that such a god could have easily created a geocentric universe ex nihilo in the recent past, in which most of the volume of the universe is inhabitable by humans and other lifeforms— precisely the kind of universe that most humans believed in until the rise of modern science. While a personal god might have created the kind of universe we observe, Carrier contends that this is not the kind of universe we would most likely expect to see if such a god existed. He finally argues that, unlike theism, our observations about the nature of the universe are strongly expected on the hypothesis of atheism, since the universe would have to be vast, very old, and almost completely devoid of life if life were to have arisen by sheer chance.
-->
@FLRW
Richard Carrier doesn't know God, his argument is nonsensical in light of that realization.
-->
@FLRW
That's a strange topic to invoke richard carrier on. I'm assuming you mean Dr. Richard Carrier, the ancient historian who does a lot of talks about the historicity of jesus?
-->
@Barney
I’ve seen enough miracles which are better explained by God than random chance and predetermination.Granted, this is why I believe, not a declaration that others must believe.
The argument from personal experience isn't very strong (or at least I believe). First off, how would you explain Muslims experiencing the Allah, or Ancient Egyptians sighting Osiris? Many people claim to have a personal experience with their God but the issue is that these sightings are common in any religion you encounter.
Second off, what constitutes a "miracle". What have you experience that is considered a miracle. It's important to note the difference between a miracle and luck. Once in a while, reports of "miracles" are documented. However, we should expect these entirely accurate reports of extremely improbable things happening occasionally. Imagine life to be a lottery, and everyone is participating. As billions of people go through the lottery of life, some are bound to get spectacularly lucky. To pin these improbable things on supernatural causes is to ignore the statistical probability of these miracles happening to some person at some point in time. After all, we don't report on every non-miracle thing which occurs in the world, it's only the "amazing" things which people are interested in.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Yes, the Dr. Richard Carrier that is the author of On the Historicity of Jesus, Proving History, Sense and Goodness without God, The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire, Science Education in the Early Roman Empire, Not the Impossible Faith, Why I Am Not a Christian, Jesus from Outer Space, and Hitler Homer Bible Christ. He is also a contributor to The Empty Tomb, The Christian Delusion, The End of Christianity, Christianity Is Not Great, and Resurrection: Faith or Fact, as well as copious other work in history and philosophy, online and in print.
-->
@FLRW
Yeah exactly, so it's weird to invoke him as an authority on the universe since he's a historian not an astrophysicist or cosmologist
-->
@Wagyu
The argument from personal experience isn't very strong (or at least I believe). First off, how would you explain Muslims experiencing the Allah, or Ancient Egyptians sighting Osiris? Many people claim to have a personal experience with their God but the issue is that these sightings are common in any religion you encounter.
The vastness of creation allows for many types of spiritual experiences, not just one or two. That means that there's not just one source over another that can have legit experience. It also doesn't mean that everything someone invented is accurate, invention and observation are two separate things. It's also possible/probable that people could be observing the same reality but are just expressing that reality with different names and different interpretations, varying features ect ect.
Actually, personal experience is a very real and strong argument because it's based on first hand observations, people just don't know it yet...their objections are valid they just aren't relevant. They are unaware that variations are not an issue, they are in fact a feature of creation.
Because of the reality that there are countless societies that exist outside the immediate physical realm one can have many types of encounters. God understands that the soul will have many different and various interests and desires and so God accommodates that with God's eternal creative abilities. Whether or not Theists accept this phenomenon is irrelevant, what they say or believe about that has no real merit. So they can make claims that they believe this or that, or that their observations are the only "true" experience but those claims should be considered but then tossed aside...to put it bluntly. It's time for souls here to realize how magnificent and beautiful the variations of creation are and if they choose to abide in a particular culture and show reverence and love for that one culture it's okay, but stop being a racist religious thug, to put it bluntly. It is time for people to grow up and observe the many wonderful features that God has created and stop the prejudice.
You have several places within creation that have rulers of those parts of creation....it may be a whole universe of its own, it may be a galaxy or simply a single planet. These become kingdoms that a soul can be subjected to and make observations from. This keeps the fun of ancestral pride and cultural loyalty an ongoing feature of creation even when we leave Earth. The beings that rule these parts of creation are called Gods and human souls follow them and are loyal to them. It's the same phenomenon we see on earth but on a grand scale, kingdoms on this planet have kings and people within those kingdoms follow their king and fight for their rulers. This same premise extends beyond just the physical world into the afterlife.
When you leave this world there are several parallel worlds that have the same features of our physical universe. Yes, this does in fact support the multiverse theory which is actually a legit proposition. It is indeed compatible with the Creator hypothesis but often times religious assumption gets in the way, and too bad because God's love for variation and flavors gets lost in such baloney. But it is true that all of creation, including a myriad of powerful Beings come out of a singular Reality. It then becomes almost a hierarchy of types with many layers of creation which enables many types of experiences a soul can have and a soul can sojourn. This is a good thing not a negative thing!
Second off, what constitutes a "miracle". What have you experience that is considered a miracle.
Well I'm not speaking for the other poster obviously, but a miracle would simply be an action taken that had its origins from a source outside of our immediate physical domain. Other beings in creation outside of ours can and will act as they feel necessary and what they can do within their specific powers. Miracles shouldn't be labeled as something we feel is necessary, it's what the other source feels is necessary.
It's important to note the difference between a miracle and luck. Once in a while, reports of "miracles" are documented. However, we should expect these entirely accurate reports of extremely improbable things happening occasionally. Imagine life to be a lottery, and everyone is participating. As billions of people go through the lottery of life, some are bound to get spectacularly lucky. To pin these improbable things on supernatural causes is to ignore the statistical probability of these miracles happening to some person at some point in time. After all, we don't report on every non-miracle thing which occurs in the world, it's only the "amazing" things which people are interested in.
It's okay to speculate as long as you understand its speculation.
-->
@Tradesecret
I can only speak for myself.
The only reason why I Identify as an agnostic is because people like putting names to things, I personally would rather be unaffiliated with any word or belief. I personally have no idea if Good exists or not, nether the atheist nor the theist have successful arguments.
I guess It's possible a God exists, however, when I look at the world, I really see no evidence for a God.
I rather not be called anything, however since there is no "none" or "I don't know if there's a God or not" in the religion category, I choose agnostic, because even though it doesn't describe me 100% accurately, it's the closest one, and I didn't want to leave the category blank.
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
If you believe there is an ultimate reality, you believe that there is a God.
That would at the very least make you a deist.
-->
@Mopac
how is believing in an ultimate reality believing in God? What is your definition of ultimate reality and God?
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
The Ultimate Reality is God.
Reality in the truest sense of the word.
That is what God is.
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I can only speak for myself.The only reason why I Identify as an agnostic is because people like putting names to things, I personally would rather be unaffiliated with any word or belief. I personally have no idea if Good exists or not, nether the atheist nor the theist have successful arguments.I guess It's possible a God exists, however, when I look at the world, I really see no evidence for a God.I rather not be called anything, however since there is no "none" or "I don't know if there's a God or not" in the religion category, I choose agnostic, because even though it doesn't describe me 100% accurately, it's the closest one, and I didn't want to leave the category blank.
hi Jarrett_Ludolph,
I do find it intriguing when people identify as agnostic. It is a matter for you though. Interestingly, I am constantly amused when people want to identify themselves at all. What is the point of that? And although it is possibly correct that neither the atheist or the theist have successful arguments, is the argument for agnostic any more successful? Personally I find any argument for agnostic - as potentially less successful than either of the other two position.
I wonder if we asked a separate question whether it might reveal more about your beliefs. For instance, I find that most agnostics I know live their lives like God does not exist. Would that represent you or not? After all, atheists, mostly live their lives according to a moral scheme of some kind. They try to live well and treat others well as well. I think that they are not necessarily consistent with their position that there is no god. Yet, they seem to think - without any particular reason, not one that is articulated anyway, that living a good life - and for others is a good thing to do.
I suppose on some level they take the view - like agnostics - that despite the fact that they have not seen any evidence for God's existence, that if they are wrong about God existing, then they want to give them selves a fighting chance by being at least a half decent human being. Surely if God did exist, he would recognize their attempts at being a decent human being and not send them to destruction.
Yet, from my perspective, living like God does not exist yet attempting to live a half decent life is contradictory or inconsistent. Yes, I know there are streams of philosophy that talk about the great benefits for humanity when we all exist well together and look after the common good. And there seems to be no particular reason why atheists or agnostics would not want to serve the greater good of the planet. Well except that it enables them to live in a half decent safe place on the planet. Some kind of social contract I imagine.
The interesting thing from my perspective is that if there was a question about God's existence - and God really did care about whether people lived good lives or not - then by being invisible to most people and then rewarding everyone who does a good thing whether they believe or not - seems a rather obtuse way of going about it. It makes even less sense than the religions which talk about "good works" as a means of getting to whatever heaven they particularly believe in.
If living a half decent life was all that we had to do - then what would be the point of religion. And what would be the point of God? After all, what is the process once we die? Do we leave our bodies here and now - and go somewhere? OR do we wait for someone? Or what? Is God required to send an angel or to miraculously lift us from earth to some netherland? What does God have to do with any of it? Would not heaven be a nicer place if God did not exist?
Living a good life may well be what humanity thinks is required by God. But what does a good life look like? And who determines it? Does it include all your childhood or is only from when you really get to make decisions? Is it before you have a life changing surgical procedure? Or is it just one moment that changes everything - just before you die? Or does what you think just before you die irrelevant?
What kind of evidence are you looking for - when you say you have not seen any evidence for God? Would you have to be convinced on a scientific level or an emotional level, or on the balance of probabilities - or on a no lingering doubt level or beyond reasonable doubt - or what? If God appeared before you in the next 10 minutes how would you know it was God?
If he said he was God? Would that be enough? If he did some magic tricks - would that satisfy you? If he took you to the red sea and parted it, would that convince you? If he gave you powers would that convince you?
One of the things that convinced me - was an overwhelming sense of forgiveness for my sins after I repented. I went from being an angry and introverted person who judged everyone and anything to a completely different type of person. All my family and friends noticed a real significant change in my life. I went from being angry with life and God and everything - to not being angry. But thankfulness. People went from hiding from me - to seeking me out. Now lots of people will put whatever spin they like on this change in my life. And all of it can probably be explained without God for them.
Yet, in my particular case - I know it was God.
This is why I ask - what particular type of evidence are you looking for? By the way I was not looking for evidence. It ended up hitting between the eyes.
-->
@Tradesecret
With all due respect, I will not be responding to most of your post, since (at least it seems to me) that there was only one part of the lengthly post that related to me.
'What kind of evidence are you looking for - when you say you have not seen any evidence for God"
I will more then happily debate this with you, in a debate structure, not in a forum one.
However, I will give a quick response of what type of evidence would compel me.
Firstly, anything that proves a God would be necessary in order to have the world around us, or that God is the only good explanation for a part of reality (for example, apparent fine tuning of the universe)
Secondly, how would I know that it's God that's appearing to me? Well, it probably wouldn't be God, for no one has directly seen God(john 1:18). However, it would probably be an Angel, many angles appeared to people in the bible. So how would I know it was an angle? Well, if it looked like what the bible describes them to be (in ezekiel 1 5-15). And if they parted the red sea, did supernatural feats, I would probably convert. And I would probably to get it on clear, nom-bleary video as well, to ensure I'm not hallucinate. Also, if the Angel could do this repeatedly, and
Predicably, such as never falling to help someone when their family prays for healing, this would be undeniable evidence for the supernatural.
Also, my Kalam Cosmological Argument debate is still open, if you want to take it (I thought it was relevant since the KCA is an argument for God, and if successful would be evidence for a God)
Lastly, (I don't ask this much) but what's the best way to find a miracle, I mean, is there anything I could do that would have God give me a miracle or sign? I genuinely want to know, I'm not trying to be sassy or snarky.
-->
@Mopac
Sounds like Presuppositionalism to me.
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Presuppositional apologetics is a protestant thing that has nothing to do with my approach or beliefs.
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Since the very start, we have believed and taught that The Truth is God.
In a world that wants to make fantasies, forces of nature, and every created thing under heaven into a god.
The modern secular and materialist worldview, which was constructed by academics who very intentionally wanted to do away with God, does not negate in any way the truth of our faith. The only thing it does is obscure it.
What is an atheist to us? Someone who is in denial of their gods. Functionally, they have their gods. They are pagans in practice.
What is atheism towards The One True God? A profession of nihilism, that there is no ultimate reality or absolute truth.
-->
@Mopac
You're definitely presupposing that the truth is god, with no real justification
-->
@Sum1hugme
Why do you say I have no justification?
-->
@Mopac
Because all you said to justify it was "Since the very start, we have believed and taught that The Truth is God." But this isn't supported by anything you just seem to assert it and go from there
-->
@Mopac
you presuppose that God is Truth, however, what evidence do you have that God is prove.
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't need any more justification for what it is that is meant by a word.
It should be apparent that nothing else is worthy of being called God, there is nothing greater. Nothing else that is called a god can even properly be called divine when compared to The Ultimate Reality. Nothing even truly compares to God.
My belief is entirely justified. What is the point of many words? I can certainly talk at length about this. However, if you are discerning, I have said all that is necessary. The Ultimate Reality is God. Accept that this is God, and nothing more needs to be said. To deny that this is God is to not speak of my God.
-->
@Mopac
What exactly constitutes the "ultimate reality," and why call it god, whatever "it" is?
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
It is what we believe and teach. It has certainly been revealed to us. I think the stupidity of taking anything else as a god is solid enough proof.
It is better to have the Truth as God than anything else that can only be a god in pretense.
-->
@Sum1hugme
The Ultimate Reality is the foundation of all existence. It is not composed of parts. It is singular, not existing in relation to anything else. It is not contingent. Rather, everything that exists is contingent on it. The Ultimate Reality is what gives existence to all things. Everything that exists is contained within it.
Why call it God? Nothing else is deserving of being called God. This is the God that was revealed to us.