Is there a god?

[ding]

Taz, if you are looking for evidence all you need to do is look inside yourself.

"Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?" C.S. Lewis

So you have no proof except "look inside yourself". Gee, what a surprise!

I have tons of proof, Taz. You are the one who has none. That's how I know you are a militant atheist and not an agnostic.

"look inside yourself" and a CS Lewis quote is your proof. Tons? That's not even a ton of nonsense, just a small amount.

Then let's see your argument against it. OK?

That's not how things are proven or disproven. It's a homily and a quote from an author's musings. Your proving skills are in need of an upgrade.

Let's see....

Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Thomas Aquinas, Confucius all agree with me that virtue leads to peace and harmony.

Can you name someone who doesn't believe that virtue leads to peace and harmony?

 

[ding]

Every great philosopher or thinker in the history of mankind has acknowledged that the moral law is discovered.

Don't kill
Don't steal
Don't put words in other people's mouths
Don't make assumptions
Don't bear false witness
Be true to your promises
etc.

You mean the moral law is the 10 commandments? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

The moral law is more than that, Taz. For any given thing there is a final state of fact. We call this objective truth or reality. Once discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way. Truth is eternal and unchanging. Which is the definition of God. Ergo, God is truth. Ergo, God is reality. Ergo, God is existence.

That's a personal opinion, not proof.

Observations of behaviors and outcomes are proof, taz.

Where is your proof?

We know that moral laws do exist because of our behaviors and outcomes when we violate the moral laws.

If I lie to save my life, then violating the moral law has a positive outcome. Fuck brah, this is too easy.

Did you bear false witness in doing so? Did you violate a promise in doing so? You lose again.

 

[ding]

Taz, if you are looking for evidence all you need to do is look inside yourself.

"Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?" C.S. Lewis

So you have no proof except "look inside yourself". Gee, what a surprise!

Why would you need anymore proof than that?

Sorry, I thought you had some proof. Maybe it's time for you to buy a dictionary?

I have done that over and over again, Taz.

Where is your proof that my proof is wrong?

Nonsense cannot be disproved. It's one of the fundamental laws of the universe.

How was it nonsense? Surely you can show me how it didn't make sense.

For example, I can show how you saying you are an agnostic doesn't make sense. So it is possible to disprove nonsense, Taz.

 

[ding]

Taz, if you are looking for evidence all you need to do is look inside yourself.

"Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?" C.S. Lewis

So you have no proof except "look inside yourself". Gee, what a surprise!

I have tons of proof, Taz. You are the one who has none. That's how I know you are a militant atheist and not an agnostic.

"look inside yourself" and a CS Lewis quote is your proof. Tons? That's not even a ton of nonsense, just a small amount.

Then let's see your argument against it. OK?

That's not how things are proven or disproven. It's a homily and a quote from an author's musings. Your proving skills are in need of an upgrade.

How does it not make sense, Taz?

I can show how you saying you are an agnostic doesn't make sense. So it is possible to disprove nonsense, Taz.

 

[ding]

1. Taz isn't an agnostic because she rejects proof of God's existence without any basis for rejecting the evidence.

2. Taz isn't an agnostic because it pleases her to subordinate the faith of others.

3. Taz isn't an agnostic because she is disingenuous because she posts under multiple accounts.

4. It pleases Taz to subordinate religion because she is angry with Christians because she is a lesbian who feels disrespected by Christians.

That's how you prove that something doesn't make sense. So it is possible to disprove nonsense.

 

[ding]

Apparently it is possible to prove a negative.

 

[ding]

What Taz intended for evil, God has used for good.

 

[Taz]

All those examples are filled with war, massacres, rapes-as-a-weapon and slavery. Please try again.

The moral law is what we ought to do, not what we do. I have already explained to you that we rationalize that we didn't do evil but never reject the concept of right and wrong.

In other words, morality is subjective. Thanks for clearing that up.

No. Men are subjective. Morality is absolute. We've been over this a dozen times and you have no answer for it other than a child's response.

So do you have any example of virtuous countries or not? Seems like "not".

Yes, I have already provided that to you. Are you arguing that virtue does not lead to peace and harmony in a people?

Can you provide your reasoning for that or maybe an authority who state that virtue does not lead to peace and harmony?

You haven’t shown me one country were that’s true.

 

[Taz]

Wouldn't god be the most advanced in your world?

The painter is not the painting, Taz.

"The purpose of the universe is create intelligence aka consciousness". So you have no proof for this statement. Got it.

I've already proven this point. Consciousness is the most advanced thing the universe has produced. We can only know the purpose of something by its practically complete product. That would be consciousness.

Can you name anything more advanced than consciousness?

"Consciousness is the most advanced thing the universe has produced" This has not been proven. It might seems like it know, but who knows what's out there in a universe we've never explored? You could say that it's the most advanced thing we've found so far. But that's about it.

Can you think of anything that would be more advanced, Taz?

You can solve this by inspection.

Like I said, I don’t presume to know everything that’s in the universe like you do.

 

[Taz]

So you have no proof except "look inside yourself". Gee, what a surprise!

I have tons of proof, Taz. You are the one who has none. That's how I know you are a militant atheist and not an agnostic.

"look inside yourself" and a CS Lewis quote is your proof. Tons? That's not even a ton of nonsense, just a small amount.

Then let's see your argument against it. OK?

That's not how things are proven or disproven. It's a homily and a quote from an author's musings. Your proving skills are in need of an upgrade.

Let's see....

Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Thomas Aquinas, Confucius all agree with me that virtue leads to peace and harmony.

Can you name someone who doesn't believe that virtue leads to peace and harmony?

Philosophers, not people with proof.

 

[Taz]

You mean the moral law is the 10 commandments? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

The moral law is more than that, Taz. For any given thing there is a final state of fact. We call this objective truth or reality. Once discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way. Truth is eternal and unchanging. Which is the definition of God. Ergo, God is truth. Ergo, God is reality. Ergo, God is existence.

That's a personal opinion, not proof.

Observations of behaviors and outcomes are proof, taz.

Where is your proof?

We know that moral laws do exist because of our behaviors and outcomes when we violate the moral laws.

If I lie to save my life, then violating the moral law has a positive outcome. Fuck brah, this is too easy.

Did you bear false witness in doing so? Did you violate a promise in doing so? You lose again.

Violate a promise?

 

[ding]

The moral law is what we ought to do, not what we do. I have already explained to you that we rationalize that we didn't do evil but never reject the concept of right and wrong.

In other words, morality is subjective. Thanks for clearing that up.

No. Men are subjective. Morality is absolute. We've been over this a dozen times and you have no answer for it other than a child's response.

So do you have any example of virtuous countries or not? Seems like "not".

Yes, I have already provided that to you. Are you arguing that virtue does not lead to peace and harmony in a people?

Can you provide your reasoning for that or maybe an authority who state that virtue does not lead to peace and harmony?

You haven’t shown me one country were that’s true.

That's because they don't keep the moral law and because it is cyclical. But I have given you examples of what it looks like when they do.

You have not provided one authority who says that virtue does not lead to peace and harmony.

You have not provided any rationale for why you believe that virtue does not lead to peace and harmony.

 

[Taz]

So you have no proof except "look inside yourself". Gee, what a surprise!

Why would you need anymore proof than that?

Sorry, I thought you had some proof. Maybe it's time for you to buy a dictionary?

I have done that over and over again, Taz.

Where is your proof that my proof is wrong?

Nonsense cannot be disproved. It's one of the fundamental laws of the universe.

How was it nonsense? Surely you can show me how it didn't make sense.

For example, I can show how you saying you are an agnostic doesn't make sense. So it is possible to disprove nonsense, Taz.

You can’t, you’re just jealous of my position as an agnostic.

 

[ding]

The moral law is more than that, Taz. For any given thing there is a final state of fact. We call this objective truth or reality. Once discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way. Truth is eternal and unchanging. Which is the definition of God. Ergo, God is truth. Ergo, God is reality. Ergo, God is existence.

That's a personal opinion, not proof.

Observations of behaviors and outcomes are proof, taz.

Where is your proof?

We know that moral laws do exist because of our behaviors and outcomes when we violate the moral laws.

If I lie to save my life, then violating the moral law has a positive outcome. Fuck brah, this is too easy.

Did you bear false witness in doing so? Did you violate a promise in doing so? You lose again.

Violate a promise?

It's called keeping your word and it is a moral law and there are predictable surprises when one is not true to his word. Most people see this as a self evident truth.

 

[ding]

Why would you need anymore proof than that?

Sorry, I thought you had some proof. Maybe it's time for you to buy a dictionary?

I have done that over and over again, Taz.

Where is your proof that my proof is wrong?

Nonsense cannot be disproved. It's one of the fundamental laws of the universe.

How was it nonsense? Surely you can show me how it didn't make sense.

For example, I can show how you saying you are an agnostic doesn't make sense. So it is possible to disprove nonsense, Taz.

You can’t, you’re just jealous of my position as an agnostic.

I wish you were an agnostic, Taz. Then you might find some peace in your life.

 

[ding]

I have tons of proof, Taz. You are the one who has none. That's how I know you are a militant atheist and not an agnostic.

"look inside yourself" and a CS Lewis quote is your proof. Tons? That's not even a ton of nonsense, just a small amount.

Then let's see your argument against it. OK?

That's not how things are proven or disproven. It's a homily and a quote from an author's musings. Your proving skills are in need of an upgrade.

Let's see....

Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Thomas Aquinas, Confucius all agree with me that virtue leads to peace and harmony.

Can you name someone who doesn't believe that virtue leads to peace and harmony?

Philosophers, not people with proof.

Can you explain why you believe that virtue does not lead to peace and harmony?

 

[Flash]

I, personally, believe that there is a god. What that means, though, I have been struggling with for quite some time. Therefore, I pose the questions:

1. If there is a god, what does that mean?
2. If there is not a god, what does that mean?

I am looking for opinion, obviously, I do not believe there will ever be proof, or empirical evidence (at least not until rapture, assuming that there is a god). What I am looking for here is what people believe. What leads you to believe what you do? Why?

Let me be clear, I am NOT looking for evangelism of any kind here. I am looking for what the presence of god (or lack of a god) means to you. I know this is a pretty ambiguous thread, and I do that on purpose, because I do not ant to influence the way anyone responds. I want to open a discussion about what your beliefs (whatever they are) have shaped who you are, how you look at religion (in general), and how you look at the world.

To me there are only two alternatives.

1. The universe is the product of some intelligent design.

2. The universe created itself out of nothing. (There are many possible variation of this but it all boils don to the same thing.)

As a human being I cannot comprehend something being made out of nothing. It is against everything I know about science. It is against the laws of physics. It is unbelievable.

Until somebody can definitively proved to me that the universe created itself out of nothing I perceive the alternative to be more rational.

So yes, I believe God exist.

 

[Taz]

1. Taz isn't an agnostic because she rejects proof of God's existence without any basis for rejecting the evidence.

2. Taz isn't an agnostic because it pleases her to subordinate the faith of others.

3. Taz isn't an agnostic because she is disingenuous because she posts under multiple accounts.

4. It pleases Taz to subordinate religion because she is angry with Christians because she is a lesbian who feels disrespected by Christians.

That's how you prove that something doesn't make sense. So it is possible to disprove nonsense.

I’m not a she, so not a lesbian. That must come as a shock to you because you’re such a gullible fool.

1. & 3. You have no proof for me to reject.

Dunno what 2 is supposed to mean.

 

[ding]

1. Taz isn't an agnostic because she rejects proof of God's existence without any basis for rejecting the evidence.

2. Taz isn't an agnostic because it pleases her to subordinate the faith of others.

3. Taz isn't an agnostic because she is disingenuous because she posts under multiple accounts.

4. It pleases Taz to subordinate religion because she is angry with Christians because she is a lesbian who feels disrespected by Christians.

That's how you prove that something doesn't make sense. So it is possible to disprove nonsense.

I’m not a she, so not a lesbian. That must come as a shock to you because you’re such a gullible fool.

1. & 3. You have no proof for me to reject.

Dunno what 2 is supposed to mean.

You are Mudda.

 

[Taz]

"look inside yourself" and a CS Lewis quote is your proof. Tons? That's not even a ton of nonsense, just a small amount.

Then let's see your argument against it. OK?

That's not how things are proven or disproven. It's a homily and a quote from an author's musings. Your proving skills are in need of an upgrade.

Let's see....

Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Thomas Aquinas, Confucius all agree with me that virtue leads to peace and harmony.

Can you name someone who doesn't believe that virtue leads to peace and harmony?

Philosophers, not people with proof.

Can you explain why you believe that virtue does not lead to peace and harmony?

Not saying it can’t, just that you’ve shown no proof that it has.