Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[M.D. Rawlings]

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more. I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural knowledge. For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide? Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events cannot be gleaned from these things. But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence. The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

This is in terms of 'God created the laws"

If God created the laws, did he list all of them and hand it to us? Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?


Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?

I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes. Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.

Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this: God didn't create the laws of thought or morality. God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both. This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.

If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces. You don't care about that maggot. You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.

Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species? They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water. If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.

So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere. Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets. Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled. If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened. We were lucky that meteor hit. It wasn't a god. But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed. What was god waiting for all that time? What was up with the dinosaurs? Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE? Dummies! LOL.

So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...

That's a rather large leap isn't it?

I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.

Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.

"Nuh huh" is all they got.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

One thing I find interesting is christians will say God created the universe, the big bang didn't happen because something can't be created out of nothing. A typical response is "who created god then?" The christian goes on to say god has always been there. Assuming that logic, couldn't it be said that the chemical compounds to create the big bang have always been there.

Uh, I don't know of any serious Christian apologist, scientist, philosopher or theologian who disputes the Big Bang Theory.

Yet most americans and most christians do not believe in the big bang theory. Read through the threads here in this forum. You will find many.

It's not a problem at all. On the contrary, it arguably supports theism.

Not according to most christians
Only 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe in Big Bang - CNET
A Majority of Americans Still Aren t Sure About the Big Bang - The Atlantic
Study Americans are as likely to believe in Bigfoot as in the big bang theory - The Washington Post

I don't know of any college educated pastor that denies that.

You don't get out much. Or maybe you live in Belgium or Holland. You certainly can't be living in the US abd be ignorant to the fact most don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people.

Nothing to do with people I talk too. It has to do with the opinions of people in the media, on forum boards like this, christian columnists, journalists, authors, clergy leaders... etc.
[Quote}The Big Bang would not refute the standing proof in logic and the current, working presupposition for science of the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes. That's where we're at right now, so we formally assume in logic that to be an absurdity and an improbable hypothesis in science.

What you described is not the Big Bang theory.

In any event, we do not proceed from indemonstrable or undemonstrated absurdities in either.

Like the existence of a god

By definition, God is not a creature. He is the Creator, eternally self-subsistent.

Since when were you the one chosen to define god?

The question "Who created God?" is absurd.{/QUOTE]I think it's pretty good. You don't like it because you or no one else can answer it.

On the other hand, material existence doesn't inherently carry that axiomatic tautology. It may or may not be eternal.

What may or may not be eternal? Have no ida what you are talking about.

Are you arguing that something has always existed or not? Are you arguing that something can come from nothing or not?

Do you know what your point is?

Do you exist?

Stop letting others do your thinking for you.

Nobody is thinking for me. In fact I brought up a point that hasn't been brought up before. I'm arguing by using the same logic that has been applied by christian apolgists on this forum many times before.

No. It's not the same logic. In fact, your arguments are not logical at all. They amount to "Nuh huh" in the face of unassailable imperatives. You might as well try to swim across the Atlantic. When the sharks come, tell them, "Nuh huh."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Closing All the Doors: Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind

On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/)

BreezeWood said:
. . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
only the Everlasting is certain - not God.

Okay, so we established that we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things" in the previous post (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/) in which I gave you some food for thought regarding the objective necessities of #3.

I've been waiting for someone to raise this very objection without GT’s backpedaling high jinks after he conceded the first five, that is, before he thought about it again in the light of #6 which threw him, but only because of his confusion over the distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. I disabused him of that, improved him. Hence, given that his last remaining objection was not valid after all, he necessarily concedes #6 and #7.

1. Hence, we have GT down for all of "The Seven Things," though, no doubt, he will continue to deny the obvious.

2. Bronco4 necessarily put himself down for all of “The Seven Things” once he conceded that his mountains over #4 were made out of "no hills" at all.

3. Justin's down for all of "The Seven Things."

4. Obviously, I’m down for all of “The Seven Things."

5. Boss is down for all of "The Seven Things"; however, he holds that while his belief in these things is logically valid, he cannot know them to be actually true. Fair enough.

6. Seelybobo is down for all of "The Seven Things."

(Seelybobo talked his way into all of "The Seven Things" as he unwittingly acknowledged the necessity of the real "Seven Things" in his attempt to do what cannot be done with his counterfeit seven things.)​

7. Based on the various assertions made by Hollie on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, she put herself down for the first five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, the other two, #6 and #7, implicitly. Only, because she ain't packin' a full deck, we also have her down for you-know-what and giggles.

8. Foxfyre's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.

9. Emily's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.

10. Now, let me show you, BreezeWood, why you have finally put yourself down for all of "The Seven Things" too, though, in your case, with a real humdinger of a paradox to go along with them. Bonus!

You insist on imposing a potentiality for divinity that would arbitrarily preclude what is universally known to be objectively possible due to the universally hardwired laws of organic logic: the potentially highest standard for divinity (God the eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Creator of all other things that exist). This standard must necessarily be asserted; otherwise, we beg the question. And this notion does in fact exist in your mind as such. You just acknowledge that you are aware of this only objectively defensible standard for divinity by the very act of making the distinction you made in the above, which puts you down for #3!

#3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.

So we have you down for #1, #2 and #3.

Now, we come to #4, and this is where we run into what appears to be a paradox . . . for you. I could be wrong, but I have the impression from everything you've shared with us on this thread that you embrace some form of pantheism.

If that's not true, we have you down for #4 without any legitimate objection in sight. But if that is true . . . we still have you down for #4, as #4 necessarily follows from the objectively undeniable cognitive fact of #3: the objectively highest conceivable standard for divinity, God the Creator, would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, as no mere creature, logically, could be greater than the Creator of all other things.

But it seems that your particular flavor of pantheism does not hold up against the objectively undeniable fact of #3 and the subsequent necessity of #4.

Paradox.

You might want to consider the possibility that your notion of God is wrong in the light of the objectively manifest imperatives of organic logic regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin.

In any event, you're necessarily down, logically, for #1, #2, #3 and #4, as are we all due to the universally absolute imperatives of organic/classical thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle.

From there, #5 and #6 are axiomatically true for all of us in their own right, logically, and #7 necessarily follows with the acknowledgement of the first six.

We have you down for all of "The Seven Things," BreezeWood. Stop trying to evade these universally objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin. For once one acknowledges one's existence and that of the cosmos . . . no one escapes the other five, not even, in truth, antirealist hacks.

See how that works?

May
The LORD bless you, and keep you. May the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you. May the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.​

Now take real close look at the I AM! of #6:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/

1. I believe in god(s)
2. My preacher and parents and friends believe in god(s)
3. Even though they're wrong, even Muslims believe in god(s)
4. We've always believed in god(s)
5. It makes me uncomfortable not know and I'd like for there to be a god and a heaven for me and granny who died 20 years ago
6. People 2000 years ago said god visited. Who am I to doubt a corrupt society?
7. Better to be safe than sorry. What do I have to lose by believing?
8. I'm gullible.

"Nuh huh"

 

[BreezeWood]

#3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.

So we have you down for #1, #2 and #3.

#3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism ... At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.

it really does not sink in for you other positions than your own ... and that the highest order of divinity, is not the highest order.

the highest order = Everlasting


the Everlasting created = The possibility that God exists - (and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order), can be logically ruled out. ... God is not the creator of "all" things.


the Almighty did not create Good and Evil, they were conquered one over the other Good over Evil - the story of Noah.


the God of this thread.

the proof for God is life without sin.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

End of thought!!!

I forgot about you. Got ya down for sev

#3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.

So we have you down for #1, #2 and #3.

#3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism ... At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.

it really does not sink in for you other positions than your own ... and that the highest order of divinity, is not the highest order.

the highest order = Everlasting


the Everlasting created = The possibility that God exists - (and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order), can be logically ruled out. ... God is not the creator of "all" things.


the Almighty did not create Good and Evil, they were conquered one over the other Good over Evil - the story of Noah.


the God of this thread.

the proof for God is life without sin.

.

The only thing I can make any sense out of here is the idea that God did not create evil, so you're objecting to the statement that God is the Creator of all other things that exist. This implies that you believe evil exists. Right? Fair enough. I expected this to be raised at some time. But consider this: the highest conceivable standard of divinity entails the idea of absolute perfection. That's why I have written "unparalleled greatness and perfection." Some think they can limit God to a one-dimensional reality as they disregard the obvious implications of the construct of infinity or be careless about the standard of divinity, not define it, more at, not assert the only objectively defensible standard that does not beg the question or collapse under the weight of the problem of evil . . . always lurking in the background.

God cannot be what He is not. God is not evil. God cannot do evil. God didn't create evil.

Evil has no meaning apart from sentience. Hence, evil is something that was created by sentient creatures. The matter is complex, and no one on this thread is ready for that one because most of them cannot get beyond their one-dimensional reality, even though everything we know from the laws of thought and the cosmos beyond our minds screams a multidimensional reality, which is key to understanding the problem. So just understand that the highest order of divinity necessarily entails absolute perfection in attribution and action.

There also seems to be the idea that good has no meaning except in terms of a dichotomy where there is the presence of evil, and that the norm is sinless existence.

Sigh

Write coherent sentences. If what you're trying to get at is so friggin' obvious it should be something that can be coherently stated. Enough of the broken, disjointed, stuttering, sputtering gibberish.

 

[dblack]

...

Sigh

Write coherent sentences. If what you're trying to get at is so friggin' obvious it should be something that can be coherently stated. Enough of the broken, disjointed, stuttering, sputtering gibberish.

Uh...

 

[dblack]

OK. God is dead. The secret is out. Know a nice deli in the Bronx?

 

[Boss]

So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...

Silly boob be like: "The elemental understanding of whut???"

 

[Hollie]

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
​

Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia.

2. The cosmological order exists!

No it doesn't​

3.

The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!

Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't.

So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Yes it can. The idea that Zeus used to throw down lightning bolts can be logically ruled out even though milions of people once believed in him. See how easy that is.

4.

If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.

5.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.

6.

It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.

7

. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

FAIL!

It's not a proof for God's existence, though it does contain an axiomatic proof of a necessary enabling condition that cannot be refuted. These things are objectively true logically, absolutely and universally, and apprehended as such upon reflection. That some may have never really thought about them, like you (LOL!), is irrelevant.

These things are and cannot be refuted. There's no fail. The failure is your mindlessness. Your foolishness has been utterly demolished on this thread and by the real world of human thought everyday of the year. Every mentally competent human being knows or may know once these things are put to him that the highest conceivable standard of divinity is an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness, contingent on no one or anything else. #3 - #7 necessarily follow from #1 and #2.

If you came here to embarrass yourself, atheism or atheists have it, but don't you think for one moment, boy, that your intellect is worth two seconds of anybody's time if this is gong to be your attitude. Out of pity I gave your arrogant stupidity fifteen minutes. Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.

Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.

With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.

 

[G.T.]

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
​

Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia.

2. The cosmological order exists!

No it doesn't​

3.

The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!

Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't.

So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Yes it can. The idea that Zeus used to throw down lightning bolts can be logically ruled out even though milions of people once believed in him. See how easy that is.

4.

If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.

5.

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.

6.

It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.

7

. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

FAIL!

It's not a proof for God's existence, though it does contain an axiomatic proof of a necessary enabling condition that cannot be refuted. These things are objectively true logically, absolutely and universally, and apprehended as such upon reflection. That some may have never really thought about them, like you (LOL!), is irrelevant.

These things are and cannot be refuted. There's no fail. The failure is your mindlessness. Your foolishness has been utterly demolished on this thread and by the real world of human thought everyday of the year. Every mentally competent human being knows or may know once these things are put to him that the highest conceivable standard of divinity is an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness, contingent on no one or anything else. #3 - #7 necessarily follow from #1 and #2.

If you came here to embarrass yourself, atheism or atheists have it, but don't you think for one moment, boy, that your intellect is worth two seconds of anybody's time if this is gong to be your attitude. Out of pity I gave your arrogant stupidity fifteen minutes. Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.

Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.

With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.

and so eloquently labeled "things!"

cuz theyre just................"things!"

lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.

 

[Meriweather]

Without God from whence sprouts a moral code? In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong? In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake? If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost? Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.

Both Jeremiah and Paul point out that God's law is written on every human heart. We also have a conscience. Not every atheist chooses lawlessness. Many follow their heart and conscience in this regard. As a student in a Catholic school, we were often told to look deep and find Christ in everyone. My grandfather may have been an atheist, and he himself may not have recognized Christ...but I could recognize Christ within him.

Similar to what someone else just said, being an atheist does not make one loving and intelligent--but it does not preclude it either.

Romans 1:18-25!

There is a difference between the wicked and those who are neither wicked and cannot believe.

 

[Hollie]

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more. I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural knowledge. For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide? Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events cannot be gleaned from these things. But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence. The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

This is in terms of 'God created the laws"

If God created the laws, did he list all of them and hand it to us? Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?


Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?

I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes. Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.

Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this: God didn't create the laws of thought or morality. God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both. This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.

If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces. You don't care about that maggot. You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.

Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species? They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water. If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.

So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere. Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets. Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled. If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened. We were lucky that meteor hit. It wasn't a god. But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed. What was god waiting for all that time? What was up with the dinosaurs? Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE? Dummies! LOL.

So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...

That's a rather large leap isn't it?

I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.

Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.

Your equivocation is meaningless. Billions of years from magical gardens with talking snakes to Noah's pleasure cruise is not the timeframe suggested in any of the bibles. If you want to rewrite the bibles as you go that's fine. That's a typical pattern of behavior for you fundamentalists. However, don't expect such nonsense to be taken seriously by those who don't share your preconditions and allegiance to christian dogma.

 

[Hollie]

Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.

It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more. I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural knowledge. For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide? Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events cannot be gleaned from these things. But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence. The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

This is in terms of 'God created the laws"

If God created the laws, did he list all of them and hand it to us? Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?


Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?

I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes. Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.

Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this: God didn't create the laws of thought or morality. God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both. This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.

If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces. You don't care about that maggot. You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.

Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species? They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water. If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.

So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere. Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets. Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled. If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened. We were lucky that meteor hit. It wasn't a god. But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed. What was god waiting for all that time? What was up with the dinosaurs? Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE? Dummies! LOL.

So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...

That's a rather large leap isn't it?

I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.

Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.

"Nuh huh" is all they got.

Actually, "they" have your concession to the utter failure of either your silly "five things" or the later disaster of the nonsensical "seven things" as a meaningful argument.

 

[sealybobo]

You are damn right superstition is a spiritual concept.

Well if superstition is a spiritual concept, it couldn't be the basis for our inventing spirituality. This defies logic. You are essentially trying to argue that the thing which invented spirituality was something spiritual.

You have shown NO evidence of when on the timeline of human history, man supposedly "invented" spirituality. NADDA! ZIP! ZILCH! In fact, you argue a logical fallacy... that something spiritual caused man to invent spirituality.

Maybe it was back when we were a single cell organism or when we somehow became multi cell? Maybe it was back when we were little harry rodent like mammals. Maybe it was when we were apes. Pre man. I guess it started before we could even talk. We were scared curious yet intelligent enough to wonder and have imaginations.

The question is, when did you guys go from saying you believe to you know there is a god? When did you guys first start lying to us and yourselves telling everyone god talks to you and you KNOW he cares. Not only exists but also cares. Silly rabbit.

 

[sealybobo]

They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die.

Again, you present another logical fallacy. Why would they think ANYTHING happens when we die? The very notion that humans contemplated what happens after we die is SPIRITUAL! So again, you are pointing to spirituality to explain why we "invented" spirituality.

I'm pointing to wishful thinking. It's all in your heads Boss. Doesn't make it real.

God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.

 

[sealybobo]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.

It seems humans can figure everything out, besides themselves. As for sound evidence that God exists, their is no evidence. Just faith, as said so many times before. Thought thousands and thousands of years, men have always believed their was some sort of god, why would that be? If billions of people thought their is a god from the very begging of written text, that indicates their most likely is. Humans are not dumb, and thought the begging of text we believed their was a god, so how would so many people be wrong? I am not stating my personal belief, but simply arguing that if so many people believe in a god for so long, and the best explanation can only be solved with the existence of a god, I would say their is one.

They weren't dumb back then? They thought Zeus was lightening. At one time they thought the sun was god and they prayed every night for i to return. Scared primitive man didn't like not knowing how we got here and what happens when we die.

The primary psychological role of religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

We should not just accept what our parents tell us. If everyone did we'd still think the earth is flat. Science has made religion basically admit under their breath that all the stories in the bible are allegories.

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

So when did your side start making up all the stories? 200,000 years ago we debated if god existed and never came up with anything. 7000-200 years ago you guys started lying and writing books about how god visited you. Why'd you guys start lying? Or, why did our dumb ancestors swallow it. Better yet, why are you still swallowing it?

 

[sealybobo]

Think about how all the other gods before the Jesus god have come and gone in 200,000 years. There were probably at least 999 other gods before the Jesus god and even a few since him. The Mormon story is 214 years old and the Muslim story is 500.

I just hope that when the Abrahamic God is gone we go back to a generic god. No more lies about how god visited you and said you go to heaven and everyone against you goes to hell. That's just a lie.

And ALL your examples are clear and concise evidence of human spirituality. The only thing you are saying is, because humans have changed and altered their spiritual beliefs over the years, renders all their beliefs irrelevant and meaningless. Well okay... so when science changes it's beliefs on something, does that negate all of science? Can we throw out the scientific method because Einstein disproves Newtonian physics? Of course not, and you can see how silly and foolish that supposition would be.

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

 

[sealybobo]

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

 

[sealybobo]

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more. I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural knowledge. For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide? Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events cannot be gleaned from these things. But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence. The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

This is in terms of 'God created the laws"

If God created the laws, did he list all of them and hand it to us? Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?


Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?

I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes. Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.

Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this: God didn't create the laws of thought or morality. God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both. This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.

If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces. You don't care about that maggot. You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.

Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species? They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water. If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.

So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere. Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets. Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled. If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened. We were lucky that meteor hit. It wasn't a god. But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed. What was god waiting for all that time? What was up with the dinosaurs? Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE? Dummies! LOL.

So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...

That's a rather large leap isn't it?

I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.

Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.

Scientists and atheist philosophers would disagree with you. They look at all the evidence and don't think a god created all this. At least not the god most of you are talking about if you know what I mean. The one that visited you and is cleaning heaven waiting to hang out with you wishful thinkers.

God bless my dad but he's not that bright. I try to point out to him all the things that science says about the problems with the theistic story and he just doesn't want to hear it. He says if science thinks that then science is stupid. There must be something. How could all of this happened by itself. He won't listen. He can't believe. Almost makes him mad. He always goes to the argument of intelligent design. How could we have one heart, two eyes to see, the organs, all perfect, then we have the cows to eat and chickens to eat.

He can't hear that this planet took billions of years to get this way. It wasn't created just for him. Just because he/you are at the top of the food chain and curious does not make you god or gods favorite. No heaven for you unless frogs go too.

 

[sealybobo]

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more. I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural knowledge. For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide? Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events cannot be gleaned from these things. But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence. The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.

I don't think that is such a bad question. In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here? Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something. But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.

I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil? Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?

Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.

God created the universe with laws that govern such. Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!' Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'. Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.

This is in terms of 'God created the laws"

If God created the laws, did he list all of them and hand it to us? Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?


Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?

I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes. Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.

Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this: God didn't create the laws of thought or morality. God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both. This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.

If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces. You don't care about that maggot. You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.

Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species? They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water. If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.

So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere. Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets. Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled. If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened. We were lucky that meteor hit. It wasn't a god. But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed. What was god waiting for all that time? What was up with the dinosaurs? Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE? Dummies! LOL.

So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...

That's a rather large leap isn't it?

I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.

Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.

The honest answer is we don't know. We didn't know 200,000 years ago and we don't know now. Better to admit you don't really know but instead have faith, and stop telling people who don't believe they are going to hell. Or worse, your retarded cousins the Muslims kill people who don't believe. Allah Akbar!