Is there any sound argument for God's existence?

[Ancient lion]

Like someone is asking for an evidence that light exists in a sunny day

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk] Science Proves God Existence- YouTube[/ame]

 

[earlycuyler]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?

In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...

Your thoughts, please.

For my part, its all faith. About the only " technical" argument I can give Is I just know. Sorry. Likely not what your looking for. I wont post scripture and stuff unless you ask, and don't think that's what your after, but God has kind of said a time or two that he won't make sence to the intelectuell, or that it may be difficult for them to take something on faith alone. Honestly, most people have a hard time takeing anything on faith alone thees days.My words not his. First and formost, as put by another poster its faith.

 

[Sunshine]

I believe that just about anyone can become a believer, if the right person talks to them. You wouldn't want to approach a man with a PhD in Astronomy, and try to tell him that the world is flat. Trying to convince a geologist that that world is 6,000 years young, and flat (some actually say they're not convinced that it's round) would be an exercise in futility. And a Paleontologist is also going to tell you where stick it, when you try to preach to her that Earth is 6,000 years old, and that human beings rode dinosaurs like horses.

It's all in the delivery.

In order to be a believer and a scientist, one must be able to understand that science is based on evidence and belief in God is based on faith. You can accept both on their own merits. This whole argument makes me think of my MIL. She would say, 'which is better, my potato salad or Aunt Hilda's?' There was not in between for her. But I could, and did, like them both. She found that to be most disagreeable because she HAD to be the best. I think the world is full of 'either or' people like her. It is this way OR it is that way. It can't be this way and I believe there is more to it than we know and can prove at present.

Personally, I don't think the universe is divided into 'natural and supernatural.' I believe they are on a continuum, and the supernatural are merely things we have not yet been able to explain empirically. Even Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing and a statistician par excellence, did not believe in Germ Theory. But now we can see bacteria and even viruses with magnification. Do you ever hear anyone argue with Germ Theory?

The supernatural in my view is what lays permanently beyond science's ability to explain naturalistically.

I cannot agree. People once thought illness was caused by the supernatural. Now we know illness is largely caused by bacteria and viruses. We also know that some diseases hitch a ride on our own DNA. If everyone thought like you we would have no cures at all. No one would have even tried to find them. I believe that everything with the right methods is perfectly explainable. We just don't have all the right methods yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Belief is only about faith.

If you don't, then pass on by, I have no ill will for you.

But if you want to stop to chat, please do.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence?

Yes.

This.

Oh for crying out loud that's man made. Run with the hummingbird will ya? you have a better chance.

Hummingbird or incredibly hot chick





potato pohtahtoh



Im gunna go with

It's like she's praying and stuff

 

[BDBoop]

I anyone is in doubt that Jesus Christ was alive - and there is a God - visit any cathedral in Europe. Start with the Cologne Cathedral and the tomb of the Three Kings, and work your way down from there.

Unbelievers love to see deities in this world. It makes them believe that a god/man really did exist. But us saints know that our Creator is invisible and that He commanded us not to believe in the deities that unbelievers believe in.

Do you know what a deity is, you fucking dingbat ?

Funniest thing I've read all week.

 

[JakeStarkey]

theword on one side and the warrior on the other extreme.

who says the Board does not resemble reality.

 

[BreezeWood]

No argument will change an unbeliever's mind. Believers and unbelievers were chosen by our Creator to participate in a saint's gospel. Believers will believe some things that we saints preach but unbelievers won't believe and they reject us. This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.

This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.


I'm slightly curious Saint Brad if you believe there is a Spirit ?

.

I'm speaking from my created existence as God's Voice so I know that the symbolic name "spirit" means God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy. From processed energy we get a defined world ( earthly flesh and things we see in this world) to experience life in.

I'm speaking from my created existence as God's Voice ...

you are not distinct as your own Spirit ?

I know that the symbolic name "spirit" means God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy.

as a distinct being the Deity relinquishes all control over, for its existence - other than its termination if necessary.


- just curious word as you seem to believe there is no free will granted the Deities creations.

.

 

[theword]

This is all done by our Creator's design, not by something His created "beings" decide to do.


I'm slightly curious Saint Brad if you believe there is a Spirit ?

.

I'm speaking from my created existence as God's Voice so I know that the symbolic name "spirit" means God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy. From processed energy we get a defined world ( earthly flesh and things we see in this world) to experience life in.

I'm speaking from my created existence as God's Voice ...

you are not distinct as your own Spirit ?

I know that the symbolic name "spirit" means God's thoughts spoken into wavelengths of energy.

as a distinct being the Deity relinquishes all control over, for its existence - other than its termination if necessary.


- just curious word as you seem to believe there is no free will granted the Deities creations.

.

God planned and created the strong delusion that we saints were given understanding about. Everything you see in this world are illusions that are meant to deceive us from our true created existence as wavelengths of energy that no flesh can see.

 

[Ancient lion]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?

Interesting video..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BdCnwy2dg0]Arguments for Gods Existence Keith Ward - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Bowman]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?

Interesting video..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BdCnwy2dg0]Arguments for Gods Existence Keith Ward - YouTube[/ame]

Your links are a sham don't you think...?

ABC Islam

 

[Boss]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?

In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...

Your thoughts, please.

In order to prove god's existence you simply have to define the meaning of those three words and their relationship with each other.

Proof, or to "prove" is to present irrefutable facts which can be accepted as evidence. The problem with "proof" is, what I view as an irrefutable fact and evidence may be completely different than what you would view. For instance, when Einstein viewed Newton's Law of Motion, he did not accept it as irrefutable fact. He challenged that with his own theory of relativity. Even though Einstein's theory prevailed, it didn't necessarily negate Newton's theory or render it invalid. Still, had Einstein simply accepted Newton's theory and never challenged it, he would have never formed the Theory of Relativity.

"God" can be imagined to mean all kinds of things. In the most simple form, it is the intangible which is greater than self. It may not be a "thing" or a "something" at all, it may be an energy or more specifically, a spirit. In any respect, it denotes some form of hierarchy greater than the human self. If you have imagined "God" as a "being" or "magical invisible person" who lives on a cloud and speaks with a Charlton Heston voice, then it's easy to consider this thing doesn't actually have a physical existence because it would defy any understanding of physical logic. However, if you can do as Einstein and challenge conventional wisdom, you may be able to consider "God" as some form of cosmic energy that man can't really explain or rationalize with science. We do know there are many phenomenon in the universe that science is inadequate to explain at this time.

This brings us to "exist" or "existence." What does that mean? Humans rationalize "existence" through verification by our five senses. We can see, taste, smell, hear or touch it. If we can't, we cannot logically deduce that it "exists." Or can we? If we had never observed black holes in our universe, would they "exist?" If humanity suddenly lost all five senses, would anything "exist?" It would in that we know that it does, but how would we ever confirm this without our senses?

Now, we have the five senses mentioned, but we can look around us in nature and find examples of living organisms which are able to sense things we humans can't. In fact, in every one of our five senses, there are animals which have a keener ability than humans. We're not superior in vision, hearing, taste, smell or touch. Not to mention the whole array of senses we simply can't relate to which we sometimes define as "instinct" or "intuition." Therefore it is arrogant of mankind to presume that our five very limited senses are all there is and nothing else can confirm any other form of existence.

If we can open our minds enough to accept that God is a non-physical (spiritual) entity which our five limited sense may not be able to detect, perhaps we can better rationalize the "existence" of "God?" I would argue the most incredible evidence for this is life itself. Life is a process. An organized and mechanical series of happening which performs in a predictable manner repeatedly all around us. Nothing about a random and circumstantial universe can logically explain this phenomenon. A process is not chaotic or random.

When we objectively inspect the billions of life forms on Earth, how they interact with each other and depend on one another, each with it's own contribution to the overall process, the circle of life, the interdependent balance in nature, existing in an environment that must conform to particular criteria to even enable the process to work... it's hard to conclude this is not the product of something greater than random chance. All the billions of things which had to happen in precise order, just for life to occur. Yet this is explained away by people who have closed their minds to any possibility of something greater than man. It is indeed an absurd conclusion to draw regardless of how intellectually you approach it.

For God to exist, does not require some physical confirmation of our senses, nor does it require that God conform to one of the many man-made constructs of religious incarnation. Religion is simply man's way of rationalizing a power it doesn't understand and cannot comprehend. In order to relate to this entity, man has developed an image of God. Since we can't relate, we have assumed humanistic attributes for God, like a God of Compassion or a God who becomes angry at sin, etc. These man-made characteristics of God do not have to apply in order for God to exist, in fact, it would surprise me if they did. Still, many people find it easier to accept a God they can relate to and understand, so we have religion for that purpose.

While our five limited senses are inadequate at confirming presence of God, humans do seem to have a sense that something greater exists. Even accounting for all the Atheists in the world, nearly 96% of humans do believe in something greater than self. Curiously, this statistic follows mankind back to his very origins. We've unearthed the most ancient human civilizations to find they conducted ritual spiritual ceremonies, so they did believe in something. It is the single most unique defining attribute of the human species, spirituality.

We hear the argument that humans created spirituality to cope with fears of death and explain the unexplained. This is an irrational explanation to me. We see no evidence in nature of any other living thing, having to "cope with fears of death" the way humans have. It would seem, if this were a legitimate explanation, at least some of the upper primates would have exhibited similar attributes, but we find absolutely no evidence to support it. Nothing else has to worship a higher power to cope with it's fear of death. As for the unexplained, we also see no evidence that other living things require explanation. They survive and thrive perfectly fine without demand for explanation.

I would argue that it is through mankind's spirituality and understanding of something greater than self, that humans developed methods of explaining the unexplained universe around us, hence: Science. Yes, the very thing that humans often revert to in order to refute God's existence, was developed out of mankind's understanding that God does exist.

 

[daws101]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?

In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...

Your thoughts, please.

In order to prove god's existence you simply have to define the meaning of those three words and their relationship with each other.

Proof, or to "prove" is to present irrefutable facts which can be accepted as evidence. The problem with "proof" is, what I view as an irrefutable fact and evidence may be completely different than what you would view. For instance, when Einstein viewed Newton's Law of Motion, he did not accept it as irrefutable fact. He challenged that with his own theory of relativity. Even though Einstein's theory prevailed, it didn't necessarily negate Newton's theory or render it invalid. Still, had Einstein simply accepted Newton's theory and never challenged it, he would have never formed the Theory of Relativity.

"God" can be imagined to mean all kinds of things. In the most simple form, it is the intangible which is greater than self. It may not be a "thing" or a "something" at all, it may be an energy or more specifically, a spirit. In any respect, it denotes some form of hierarchy greater than the human self. If you have imagined "God" as a "being" or "magical invisible person" who lives on a cloud and speaks with a Charlton Heston voice, then it's easy to consider this thing doesn't actually have a physical existence because it would defy any understanding of physical logic. However, if you can do as Einstein and challenge conventional wisdom, you may be able to consider "God" as some form of cosmic energy that man can't really explain or rationalize with science. We do know there are many phenomenon in the universe that science is inadequate to explain at this time.

This brings us to "exist" or "existence." What does that mean? Humans rationalize "existence" through verification by our five senses. We can see, taste, smell, hear or touch it. If we can't, we cannot logically deduce that it "exists." Or can we? If we had never observed black holes in our universe, would they "exist?" If humanity suddenly lost all five senses, would anything "exist?" It would in that we know that it does, but how would we ever confirm this without our senses?

Now, we have the five senses mentioned, but we can look around us in nature and find examples of living organisms which are able to sense things we humans can't. In fact, in every one of our five senses, there are animals which have a keener ability than humans. We're not superior in vision, hearing, taste, smell or touch. Not to mention the whole array of senses we simply can't relate to which we sometimes define as "instinct" or "intuition." Therefore it is arrogant of mankind to presume that our five very limited senses are all there is and nothing else can confirm any other form of existence.

If we can open our minds enough to accept that God is a non-physical (spiritual) entity which our five limited sense may not be able to detect, perhaps we can better rationalize the "existence" of "God?" I would argue the most incredible evidence for this is life itself. Life is a process. An organized and mechanical series of happening which performs in a predictable manner repeatedly all around us. Nothing about a random and circumstantial universe can logically explain this phenomenon. A process is not chaotic or random.

When we objectively inspect the billions of life forms on Earth, how they interact with each other and depend on one another, each with it's own contribution to the overall process, the circle of life, the interdependent balance in nature, existing in an environment that must conform to particular criteria to even enable the process to work... it's hard to conclude this is not the product of something greater than random chance. All the billions of things which had to happen in precise order, just for life to occur. Yet this is explained away by people who have closed their minds to any possibility of something greater than man. It is indeed an absurd conclusion to draw regardless of how intellectually you approach it.

For God to exist, does not require some physical confirmation of our senses, nor does it require that God conform to one of the many man-made constructs of religious incarnation. Religion is simply man's way of rationalizing a power it doesn't understand and cannot comprehend. In order to relate to this entity, man has developed an image of God. Since we can't relate, we have assumed humanistic attributes for God, like a God of Compassion or a God who becomes angry at sin, etc. These man-made characteristics of God do not have to apply in order for God to exist, in fact, it would surprise me if they did. Still, many people find it easier to accept a God they can relate to and understand, so we have religion for that purpose.

While our five limited senses are inadequate at confirming presence of God, humans do seem to have a sense that something greater exists. Even accounting for all the Atheists in the world, nearly 96% of humans do believe in something greater than self. Curiously, this statistic follows mankind back to his very origins. We've unearthed the most ancient human civilizations to find they conducted ritual spiritual ceremonies, so they did believe in something. It is the single most unique defining attribute of the human species, spirituality.

We hear the argument that humans created spirituality to cope with fears of death and explain the unexplained. This is an irrational explanation to me. We see no evidence in nature of any other living thing, having to "cope with fears of death" the way humans have. It would seem, if this were a legitimate explanation, at least some of the upper primates would have exhibited similar attributes, but we find absolutely no evidence to support it. Nothing else has to worship a higher power to cope with it's fear of death. As for the unexplained, we also see no evidence that other living things require explanation. They survive and thrive perfectly fine without demand for explanation.

I would argue that it is through mankind's spirituality and understanding of something greater than self, that humans developed methods of explaining the unexplained universe around us, hence: Science. Yes, the very thing that humans often revert to in order to refute God's existence, was developed out of mankind's understanding that God does exist.

one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?

 

[Boss]

one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?

No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?

 

[daws101]

one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?

No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?

yes, an argument for the IDEA OF GOD is sound but there is no quantifiable evidence to verify it...to say no hard evidence is needed is erroneou...

 

[TheShinyOne]

one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?

No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?

Ooo, snarky... right on. Could be Sephirot, counting paragraphs.

 

[daws101]

one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?

No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?

Ooo, snarky... right on. Could be Sephirot, counting paragraphs.

who?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?

No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?

yes, an argument for the IDEA OF GOD is sound but there is no quantifiable evidence to verify it...to say no hard evidence is needed is erroneou...

Define quantifiable evidence in such a way that it excludes all the known evidence for the existence of God.

 

[daws101]

No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?

yes, an argument for the IDEA OF GOD is sound but there is no quantifiable evidence to verify it...to say no hard evidence is needed is erroneou...

Define quantifiable evidence in such a way that it excludes all the known evidence for the existence of God.

all know evidence of god is anecdotal and subjective and not quantifiable.
The definition of quantifiable is something that is capable of being measured or counted.



Definition of anecdotal (adj)
Bing Dictionary
an·ec·dot·al[ ànnək dṓt'l ]
based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation
of anecdotes: relating to anecdotes or in the form of anecdotes

 

[Vox]

Homeostasis, is why I personally believe in a supreme being.

i think the brilliant concept of nucleotides is even more convincing.