Your Garage Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Kate Voegele Fire TV Stick Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer PilotWave7B PilotWave7B PilotWave7B  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Shop Now
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Prove the Existence of God(s)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 21, 2012 4:22:01 AM PDT
B. Josephson says:
Gwa: The universe behaves exactly as I would expect it to behave if there were no supreme being(s) or god(s) in charge of it.

Response: That's interesting since scientists are often surprised aboaut how the univese works.

Example, most scientists thought that this is what we would find in the evoluton of man.

First we would find apes who had larger and larger brains, then we would find later apes that stood erect.

Instead we found apes that stood erect with brains no larger than chimpanzees, and later these apes had larger brains.

Scientists looked at the planets in our solar system, and after a lot of work figured out how planets worked, now they have found other planets in other solar systems, and it threw out all their ideas.

Real scientists are often surprised about the universe and spend years trying to figure out things like why the force of gravity looks to be so much weaker than the other forces.

So IMO you are smarter than the smartest sicentists alive, or you are just shooting off your mouth.

Best Wishes,,
Shaamba Kaambwaat
Your reply to B. Josephson's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 21, 2012 4:23:22 AM PDT
B. Josephson says:
Rats. Ariex, I should have looked at your post before I posted mine.

Anyway at least I gave a few examples.

Best Wishes,
Shaamba Kaambwaat

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 4:52:54 AM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
Ariex said: "To theists, the universe behaves exactly as they would expect it to behave if there was a supreme being----as long as they don't look too closely at it."

>My point exactly.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 5:00:14 AM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
B. Josephson said: "So IMO you are smarter than the smartest sicentists (sic) alive, or you are just shooting off your mouth.[?]"

>This isn't about me, so you can drop the ad hominem. In each of the cases you mentioned, natural processes have been involved, regardless if what we know must be updated as new discoveries are made. There is no need to invoke God(s) in the details.

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 12:57:44 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 3:49:25 PM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 4:08:48 PM PDT
Zen Druid says:
Actually, that is just proof of man and man-made concepts.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 6:03:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 6:13:57 PM PDT
S. Friedman says:
Hi Chameleon,
Not to speak for Zoltan, but I don't find that he (or I) "must" believe or explain anything.

Sure, I'm curious as to the answers to all those unknowns, but why isn't it enough to say "I don't know" how the universe came to be and leave it at that?

I, for one, am perfectly content not understanding all that science has uncovered, and not having any beliefs that can be described as religious.

I don't agree that there's any necessity for faith.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 7:41:45 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
SF, it sounds like we both agree that "100% don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer that we can logically give to the question of God, which was my main point. As for the requirement of faith, let me explain it this way. If you "100% don't know", then, by definition, any conception that you have of your place in the universe and your ultimate purpose MUST be based on faith. And I don't just mean religious faith. Faith, to put it bluntly, no longer becomes an option for anyone. Whether someone is theistic or atheistic, religious or irreligious, hedonistic or humanistic, one's entire life MUST be based completely on faith, without any exception whatsoever. It can be quite unsettling, even terrifying, to realize this inescapable fact fully. Faith is simply a logical requirement of perfect ontological uncertainty.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 7:44:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 26, 2012 12:42:30 AM PDT
B. Josephson says:
No ad hominem attack, I showed your argument was nonsense.

We rarely know what to expect.

But thanks for just writing my conclusion without the argument before, it.

I now know how you argue.

And seeing I saw three people said I did not add to the discussion I state plainly'

There are three liars for atheism here.

There are liars of Jesus and liars for atheism.

They both vote no for posts because they don't like what is said, not because it does not add to the discussion.

I will say one thing in your favor, you at least responded to my post, unlike the lurkers who did not.

Again I state: "Real scientists are often surprised about the universe and spend years trying to figure out things like why the force of gravity looks to be so much weaker than the other forces."

Edit and as Ariex wrote: "The more we learn about our universe, the less it looks like anything we can imagine, much less expect."

Best Wishes,
Shaamaba Kaambwaat

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 7:58:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 8:16:50 PM PDT
S. Friedman says:
Chameleon,
From your opening statement, I think you may have misunderstood me somewhat. My position of "I don't know" has to do with the origin/existence of the universe. I make no statements nor have any beliefs regarding any god.
(I have beliefs and opinions about 'people' who make claims about gods, but that's a different topic.)

That out of the way, we're in a religion discussion forum, so I'd assume any discussion of faith is based on a religious connotation of the word. Perhaps you can define "faith" as you're using it here?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 8:36:14 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 10:07:19 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 28, 2012 7:24:37 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 10:38:45 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 11:43:16 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 28, 2012 7:25:01 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 12:32:47 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 26, 2012 12:38:39 AM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
I am not playing word games here. The difference is substantive to the infinite extreme. To assert that a mere hypothetical silly creation is equivalent in meaning or importance to the Creator variable of everything in existence in the entire universe is an absurd analogy. You also assert, "The idea of a creator is made up, like the bogeyman." Again, this is also a silly statement. The idea of a Creator variable of some sort is not merely "made up". It is an absolute logical necessity of a First Cause. Since you have not proven this statement and cannot do so, you are, by definition, making a statement of sheer faith and, as a result, leading a life in accordance with your faith.

The only other possible argument to make is that there was no First Cause and that the universe always existed, as I already stated. In this case, you must be able to explain what I posed in my first post: Why have we not yet experienced heat death according to the second law of thermodynamics if there is an infinite past behind us? Are you positing an imaginary force that overrides a fundamental law of physics?

As for my wording on "certainty", how about scrapping that term altogether, since my intention was not to emphasize lack of complete certainty, but lack of any certainty whatsoever -- i.e., lack of any nonzero probability of knowing what the real answer is. If you can, try to prove that God is either more likely to exist or more likely not to exist. All you have to do is break the 50/50 uncertainty threshold in either direction, not even hit 100%. Even this you will not be able to do, since you have no knowledge whatsoever of First Cause or the lack of it.

As for atheism requiring certainty, I never asserted this. I merely asserted that atheism requires just as much faith as theism. You are caught in a logical loop. You want to claim that atheism requires no faith, but the only way you can do so is by saying that atheism is obviously true by default, when in fact there is no default answer at all -- just perfect uncertainty.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 6:24:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 26, 2012 6:25:24 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
"It is an absolute logical necessity of a First Cause."

There is no such necessity. The human urge to have answers for everything is admirable--it leads to scientific exploration, after all--but the tendency to fill in all gaps with something invented for the purpose is regrettable... and in many cases, counterproductive, since it convinces people that we HAVE an answer when we actually don't.

God is one such "fill-in answer"--in this instance, the answer of how the universe came into existence. Rational minds, such as scientists, are still exploring the question; minds that have stopped thinking, such as creationists, assume they have an answer, even though it doesn't actually explain anything or align with the evidence or even answer the question. Because "What created God?" becomes stage 2 of the exact same problem, and it's one that theists can't resolve without derailing their original assumption that everything needs a cause (I believe you used the term "screams for an explanation").

If your answer is some sort of god, then the process moves back one step: where did your god come from? That too, 'screams' for an explanation... but a surprising number of theists seem perfectly content to answer THAT one with "I don't know." Apparently the urge to have answers has its limits.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 9:24:57 AM PDT
Astrocat says:
Brian, I agree that it's impossible to discover any "first cause". Since this universe has been around for nearly 14 billion years we'd have to go back at least that far to even have an inkling, and we're not even sure this is the first or only universe in existence.

It seems to me that we're better off just living each day in the best way possible, doing the most good and the least harm, and leave the beginnings of time and space and whatever to be discovered by our counterparts, perhaps millions of years hence.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 10:01:19 AM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Brian, you did not read my posts carefully. I never asserted Deism, that God as the First Cause must be the correct one. I merely said that a "Creator variable" is an absolute logical necessity of a First Cause, where I defined Creator as just about anything, theistic or atheistic in nature. It is interesting how zealously atheist perspectives want to see a theistic argument just because it opposes their own. I am not even making a theistic or atheistic argument. My argument is merely for the perfect rational uncertainty of both positions, which thereby requires an act of faith in one direction or another. As I emphasized already, although I agree it is fine and dandy to sit on the intellectual fence forever with a "100% don't know" answer, it is NOT possible to live your life sitting on that fence, except perhaps in a state of complete existential paralysis (and anyone who has gone deep into these questions knows what that feels like!). Every action that you take is based on the faith that you choose. Either you must live your life under the assumption/faith that there is no God or you must live your life under the assumption/faith that there is. Every experience I have ever known points me to that conclusion, and so does the logic.

With respect to the infinite causal regress argument, there is a paradox of infinite causation no matter what position you take, theistic or atheistic. However, this argument is based on the presumption of a "before", when a "before" is not necessarily required. Time itself is a dimension of the universe and therefore a function of its existence. There is therefore no need to argue what came "before" the Creator variable. But does this prove that the Creator variable must be God, or even "probably" God (>50% likely)? Of course not, since we have no knowledge whatsoever of the First Cause or the lack thereof. It is perfectly uncertain.

I am still waiting, by the way, for someone -- anyone -- to address my "heat death" argument on why the universe could not have always existed without the assumption of the same Creator variable overriding the laws of physics that is required in the alternative First Cause scenario of a universe with a distinct beginning. This is my own original argument. It is quite possible that someone else came up with it too, since it seems like such an elementary argument, but I have never heard it or read it from anyone before.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 2:24:32 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 28, 2012 7:26:54 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 2:39:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 27, 2012 6:11:17 AM PDT
zoltán says:
Chameleon says: "Zoltan, do you believe that the universe has a beginning or that it has always existed?"

No to both.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 2:52:28 PM PDT
zoltán says:
Chameleon says: "Zoltan, do you believe that the universe has a beginning or that it has always existed? If you believe that it has a beginning, then you logically are forced to believe in some sort of First Cause."

Can you demonstrate this or are you willing to leave it at the unsupported assertion stage?

"If you believe that the universe has always existed with an infinite past, then you must explain why we are not already in a state of heat death according to the second law of thermodynamics."

Can you demonstrate this?

"If you do not believe that the second law of thermodynamics is absolute or that God is the First Cause, then you must logically believe in either an imaginary force contradicting a fundamental law of physics..."

The so-called 'laws' of physics are observations of the Universe. Can you show that these 'laws' apply when the Universe does not exist? Also, as far as I understand it-- which isn't very far-- physicists and such who seem to understand things a little differently than you have models which don't "contradict... fundamental law[s] of physics".

"...then you must logically believe in either an imaginary force contradicting a fundamental law of physics or your own imaginary First Cause that is no more provably believable than the belief in God."

Again with the 'logic'! Can you show your work or are you content to leave your assertion unsupported?

"I am only trying to prove the necessity for faith and that there is no provably "right" or even "probable" answer, regardless of whether you are a theist or an atheist."

Feel free to begin at any time. I'd like to see it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 3:39:49 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Zoltan, there is no real disagreement among physicists on the inevitability of heat death or at least a continuous approach towards heat death to the point that life would no longer be possible in the universe at some point in the finite future. The logic of the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates and demands it. I don't have to. Or are you going to take the brazen position against these views? If so, then the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that the second law of thermodynamics can be nullified by your logic WHILE THE UNIVERSE EXISTS (not before it exists, as you incorrectly allege I am saying -- pay attention please). That's why it is called a "law". It is true until proven otherwise. The burden is not on me to prove it. It is on you to prove it wrong. Come on now, don't be bashful. Show me your work.

And you also ask me to "demonstrate" the necessity for a First Cause when the universe is assumed to have a beginning. By definition, the first cause at the moment the universe began is the First Cause. It is a logical tautology. Let me get this straight. You are asking me to "demonstrate" the truth of a logical tautology? Are you serious?

I thought I was dealing with someone a bit more "logical" here. Feel free to begin again when you are.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 4:46:11 PM PDT
Chameleon_X says:
Jack, call the Creator variable whatever you want -- it doesn't matter. My logic does not change one iota. Calling it "x" is does not make it any less fundamentally important. It also does not make the variable any less different or relevant, by a magnitude of infinity, vs. any imaginary finite component or creation of the universe (fairies, demons, unicorns or whatever). The "x" is the variable that either created the entire universe itself or the variable that maintains it in contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. The "x" becomes a logical necessity, not merely a concocted desire, either by the First Cause argument (if the universe has a beginning) or by the heat death argument (if the universe has an infinite past). As such, "x" is most certainly not a meaningless imagined construct, but a logically necessary one.

Don't you see how hypocritical you are in your statements? On the one hand, you say "The burden of proof is not atheists. It's on those making the claim." And then in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, you make your own CLAIM about whether God exists or not: "I don't believe there are such things as fairies, leprechauns, goddesses or gods, and the reasons why should be apparent to anyone over the age of eight. As far as theism goes the problem of evil is suffecient to show no such God exists, and the Bible clearly shows how unloving he is. That belief is requried not to suffer forever is a demonstration of a petty egocentric God. These are stories made to strike fear in people, to keep them in line."

These look like pretty firm claims to me. If it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, and what I see is a lot of "quacking". For example, you say "evil is sufficient to show no such God exists." I would argue that evil is actually just as much evidence for God existing as not existing. Without the possibility of evil, how would moral choice be even relevant or possible? And then you frame all your reasoning in terms of the Bible. Why do this, especially since we know from history that the Bible has been thoroughly corrupted, which means both the available version and the unavailable "original" version are completely irrelevant, or at least logically unreliable, as an argument for or against God. Once again, I am not even arguing "for God" here, so the entire framework of your proof is simply bogus. I am merely arguing for the logical necessity of the "x", as you prefer to call it.

Finally, you say "Atheism is not a philosophy or a worldview and it isn't even a claim to be considered "true or false"." Of course it is. "Atheism" literally means "without God" (or perhaps "against God"). It is a well staked position, not an academic fence sitting position. By your very own words, you admit that you don't live your life on any fence. You live your life as an atheist, in total rejection of God. I am not accusing you of saying that you are hypocritical for intellectually claiming "I don't know" (which is true) while also being an atheist (which is also true), since doing so is completely logical (the first position is based on reason, and the second position on faith). I am saying that you are being hypocritical for claiming that you have no beliefs about God when you clearly do. To say that you intellectually "don't know" that God exists while proclaiming your firm belief that God does not exist is a clear expression of belief and faith. How could it logically not be? You are taking a position without any convincing knowledge whatsoever. That is faith. The entire problem is that you are avoiding the logical necessity of the "x" while convincing yourself that the entire argument is about the existence of God, when it is not. Just look how you avoided my argument about how the universe could possibly have an infinite past if we have not experienced heat death yet. Answer the question, please. It really is a simple question with only one obvious conclusion based on the second law of thermodynamics. And once you answer that question, what does it tell you about the logical necessity of the "x"?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 4:48:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 26, 2012 4:49:32 PM PDT
zoltán says:
"The logic of the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates and demands it. I don't have to. Or are you going to take the brazen position against these views? If so, then the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that the second law of thermodynamics can be nullified by your logic WHILE THE UNIVERSE EXISTS (not before it exists, as you incorrectly allege I am saying -- pay attention please)."

I might be mistaking your meaning.

Your post read: "If you do not believe that the second law of thermodynamics is absolute or that God is the First Cause, then you must logically believe in either an imaginary force contradicting a fundamental law of physics or your own imaginary First Cause that is no more provably believable than the belief in God."

Which I take to mean, "If you do not believe that the second law of thermodynamics is absolute, then you must logically believe in either an imaginary force contradicting a fundamental law of physics or your own imaginary First Cause that is no more provably believable than the belief in God" _and_ "If you do not believe that God is the First Cause, then you must logically believe in either an imaginary force contradicting a fundamental law of physics or your own imaginary First Cause that is no more provably believable than the belief in God". I have a hard time making sense of either but when I wrote, "The so-called 'laws' of physics are observations of the Universe. Can you show that these 'laws' apply when the Universe does not exist?", I was addressing what I took to be the sense of, "If you do not believe that God is the First Cause, then you must logically believe in either an imaginary force contradicting a fundamental law of physics or your own imaginary First Cause that is no more provably believable than the belief in God".

Did you mean, "If you do not believe that the second law of thermodynamics is absolute, then you must logically believe in an imaginary force contradicting a fundamental law of physics. If you do not believe that God is the First Cause, then you must logically believe in your own imaginary First Cause that is no more provably believable than the belief in God."? If so, why didn't you say so?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  223
Total posts:  9881
Initial post:  Dec 28, 2011
Latest post:  19 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions