Is There A God?

[hobelim]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

Yeah, but I think that you have proven beyond any doubt that some people are not too swift.

 

[Mudda]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

Yeah, but I think that you have proven beyond any doubt that some people are not too swift.

Sorry, I didn't mean to expose you like that.

 

[Czernobog]

Nah, you can't prove God does not exist:

I definitely believe the lack of evidence of gods' existence is shown by its lack. Feel free to provide evidence of such existence in order to refute my claim. Or concede to being a fantasist.

Every scientist knows absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The bottom line here is no one knows from whence the Universe came. If the science supported the Oscillating Universe theory, then it would be a stronger proof that nothing came before. Since the evidence indicates ours is a one-shot Universe with a definite beginning and a very cold, dead eventual end, then the question remains; What caused the Big Bang?

Scientifically answer this question with proof and I'll accept it. Until then, will you accept no one knows?:

That's what's cool about science. The answer is, "I don't know, let's find out," You're presumed response: "God," offers nothing. It offers no challenge to learn, to study, to experiment. It is a proclamation that is the end of all search for knowledge. Since we "know" "What happened here", there really is no need to research, or explore, is there? Whereas, the simple answer, "I don't know, let's find out," is an invitation to exploration, and discovery.

Correct since science is limited to the natural universe. Outside the natural universe is a different matter. You can declare you know there is or isn't a God(s), but it's beyond the realm of science to back up that declaration.

So again, agnosticism is the only logical position. Atheism and Theism are positions of belief.

Ah. I see where you're going there. I can appreciate that position. I would consider myself...an optimistic polytheistic agnostic. I, personally, believe in the existence of divinity, but also admit openly that I can neither prove, nor disprove that position with certainty. I have chosen neo-Paganism as my personal spiritual path, as it is the one that I have found that most closely follows the known physical laws of the universe., and is, thus, the most logical, and rational to me.

 

[yiostheoy]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

 

[yiostheoy]

Correct since science is limited to the natural universe. Outside the natural universe is a different matter. You can declare you know there is or isn't a God(s), but it's beyond the realm of science to back up that declaration.

So again, agnosticism is the only logical position. Atheism and Theism are positions of belief.

You are omitting Philosophy from your world view.

This is an omission fallacy on your part, unfortunately.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[yiostheoy]

I did not claim to offer proof of God. I submitted evidence that the law of God is in effect.

Did you not notice that all of those good people of any religion who 'just believe' every irrational assertion about God without thinking very deeply about it have all lost their rational minds and are used and abused for life by unscrupulous charlatans?

When you are asking the faithful rational questions about their irrational faith and then you realize that no one is home, where do you think they are if not in the very place that the authors of scripture called the realm of the dead?

Who keeps them ignorant and in such captivity if not the types of people the authors of scripture defined as devils?

If you can't see what is right in front of you how do you expect to see proof of God?

"Proof Of God" is strictly within the realm of Philosophy, NOT Science NOR Religion.

Science is what we once called natural philosophy -- the philosophy of nature. It was originally fraught with speculation like all philosophy is. With the advent of Galileo, true Science was born.

By convention, Science is now based upon DATA from OBSERVATIONS in modern times. It is always so now, but was not always so in the past.

The scientific and forensic "witnesses" of God are not credible to many "scientists" because their testimonies cannot be reproduced in a lab nor in a court of law.

Even so there are plenty of witnesses of God -- Constantine, Paul, Peter, James, John The Apostle, John The Baptist, Jesus, Moses. One comes from Judaism and the others all come from Christianity. No big surprise then that Christianity is the World's leading religion, as a whole.

Philosophy contains several classic "proofs of God" as well. These stand on their own and of not require the testimony of the eye witnesses mentioned supra.

No one can say logically that there is no proof of God.

All they can assert is that you do or do not believe it.

You and I obviously do believe it.

Other heathens here do not, apparently.

These heathens do not comprehend the fallacy of their own "thinking" on the matter. It is rife with omissions. It is chock full of evil intent.

 

[Mudda]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

Proof of god cannot be found in a book with no facts. Please try again.

 

[Buck111]

Philosophy contains several classic "proofs of God" as well.

Provide us this "proof".

 

[Czernobog]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

The problem, as Sartre pointed out, is that both Aristotle's "Prime Mover", and Aquinas' "First Cause" (variations of the same theme) rely on the premise that the Universe is ordered, and purposeful. Which means that, in order to accept their "proofs", one need also accept their opening presupposition, for which they offer no proof whatsoever. They completely discount the "shit happens" factor in the universe. Sometimes things just happen. There is no reason, or evidence to presume that the universe is either ordered, or has meaning, or purpose.

Descartes' ontological proof, on the other hand is not evidence of any sort of the existence of God. In fact, his entire premise for proving of the self is the presupposition that "God" exists, and that, in fact, that God is evil, whose sole purpose is to deceive humanity. His entire argument for god is that existence "necessitates" the existence of divinity, without ever offering any actual evidence to support that necessity.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

"Proof Of God" is strictly within the realm of Philosophy, NOT Science NOR Religion.

"Proof Of God" is strictly within the realm of Philosophy" - .


and freeing the Spirit from its physiology is the same ...

.

 

[Divine Wind]

Correct since science is limited to the natural universe. Outside the natural universe is a different matter. You can declare you know there is or isn't a God(s), but it's beyond the realm of science to back up that declaration.

So again, agnosticism is the only logical position. Atheism and Theism are positions of belief.

You are omitting Philosophy from your world view.

This is an omission fallacy on your part, unfortunately.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Disagreed. In this case they can be mixed, but the end result is there are points of view that rely on faith (atheism and theism) and there are points of view that pertain only to the physical. It's why a person can be moral without having faith of anything beyond physical existence.

 

[Divine Wind]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

Proof of god cannot be found in a book with no facts. Please try again.

Agreed. In fact proof of God cannot be factually proved at all. That's why it's a matter of faith. Philosophy helps discuss the issue, but believe in an existence beyond the physical goes beyond both science and philosophy.

Faith does not equal philsophy nor vice versa although they do share some overlap.

 

[Lewdog]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

Proof of god cannot be found in a book with no facts. Please try again.

Agreed. In fact proof of God cannot be factually proved at all. That's why it's a matter of faith. Philosophy helps discuss the issue, but believe in an existence beyond the physical goes beyond both science and philosophy.

Faith does not equal philsophy nor vice versa although they do share some overlap.

Which is also why the Bible talks about Faith so much. It creates its own failsafe mode.

 

[Divine Wind]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

Proof of god cannot be found in a book with no facts. Please try again.

Agreed. In fact proof of God cannot be factually proved at all. That's why it's a matter of faith. Philosophy helps discuss the issue, but believe in an existence beyond the physical goes beyond both science and philosophy.

Faith does not equal philsophy nor vice versa although they do share some overlap.

Which is also why the Bible talks about Faith so much. It creates its own failsafe mode.

The Bible is many things, but when it comes to understanding the force behind the Creation of the Universe, no one knows. There is no evidence, only a lot of questions.

 

[ding]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

Maybe one day, you will realize that the exact moment you lost this argument was when you admitted that tangible items could be used as evidence. The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps. Science tells us that the universe did have a beginning and what we see today is a result of the evolution of matter and was a process that was done in steps. Subatomic particles evolved into hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium formed cosmic structures. Supernovas created the other elements. Chemical evolution created all the compounds. Life mad the leap from inorganic matter to organic matter. Life made the leap from single cells to multi cells and to eventually beings that know and create. The laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Here is the evidence you have been longing for. Check mate.

 

[hobelim]

The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps.

The story of genesis is about God establishing the law, as a light to the nations, in a world that was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep, meaning superstition and ignorance reigned for the previous untold millions of years of evolution when people did not yet learn to think very deeply or rationally and lived like vicious wild animals in a lawless jungle.

The story is not about the beginning of the universe or the creation of the solar system, the earth, plants, animals, or the first human beings.

The story is about an extraterrestrial influence that taught people to learn to distinguish between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, true and false, and life and death, no more than 6000 years ago.

Thats when heaven and earth, a world above and a world below, - the concept of a higher and lower realm of conscious existence - was first introduced and established among people on this planet.

 

[Spare_change]

That was the Jewish name for Him ... it led to the Jehovah name ... frankly, it's one of about 80 gazillion things He has been called.

There were no Jews in Exodus. Hebrew is not synonymous with Jew. Show me how Yahweh translates to Jehovah. It doesn't.

Ridiculously trivial ... I have no interest in going down the rabbit hole with you. If you want to return to the original premize of the OP, I'll be glad to do that. But, frankly, you have yet to show me that you have any particular expertise in the subject.

I don't believe I owe you anything.
I freely gave you the name of your god and you rejected it. There is no "rabbit hole" there.
I am the OP. Welcome to my thread.

An OP who creates a thread, not to encourage discussion, but rather, to inflict is inflated sense of self superiority, usually very quickly loses control of his thread.

You have made it clear that you are no longer interested in discussing faith --- rather, you want somebody to admire your academic muscles. So, as I promised, I'm outta here.

If you ever feel that you want to know God, to know faith, to know peace .. look me up.

Got any proof of God? Nobody here does so far.

Sure, I got proof. There is a God in my life.

If you'd like, I'll be happy to guide you to the truth, but in the end, each must make the journey alone.

 

[ding]

The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps.

The story of genesis is about God establishing the law, as a light to the nations, in a world that was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep, meaning superstition and ignorance reigned for the previous untold millions of years of evolution when people did not yet learn to think very deeply or rationally and lived like vicious wild animals in a lawless jungle.

The story is not about the beginning of the universe or the creation of the solar system, the earth, plants, animals, or the first human beings.

The story is about an extraterrestrial influence that taught people to learn to distinguish between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, true and false, and life and death, no more than 6000 years ago.

Thats when heaven and earth, a world above and a world below, - the concept of a higher and lower realm of conscious existence - was first introduced and established among people on this planet.

The account of Genesis is about a great many things of which the beginning of Creation is one of them.

 

[ding]

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

(Romans 1:19-21 ESV)

 

[Mudda]

Still, a god has not been proven by anyone here.

If you read the philosophers' writings on god-ness there are several classic proofs of God.

Aristotle is credited with "Prime Mover".

Aquinas is credited with "First Cause".

Descartes is credited with "ontological proof".

I am guessing that you have not read up on these yet and that you are unfamiliar with formal philosophy.

Therefore Alfred E Newman is a perfect avatar photo for you.

Proof of god cannot be found in a book with no facts. Please try again.

Agreed. In fact proof of God cannot be factually proved at all. That's why it's a matter of faith. Philosophy helps discuss the issue, but believe in an existence beyond the physical goes beyond both science and philosophy.

Faith does not equal philsophy nor vice versa although they do share some overlap.

Which is also why the Bible talks about Faith so much. It creates its own failsafe mode.

The Bible is many things, but when it comes to understanding the force behind the Creation of the Universe, no one knows. There is no evidence, only a lot of questions.

Google "multiverses". They discovered the possibility because the math only adds up if they exist. Science is cool, Religion is drool.