Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[ur_inner_child]

but how can you say anything about God when you don't know what happens after you're dead?

you CANNOT prove that God doesn't exist as long as you are alive.

btw about the Bible, it is a book written by humans so there might be some flaws

Such questions are not exclusively towards non-believers. The same questions can be applied to believers:

But how can you say anything about God when you don't know what happens after you're dead?

You CANNOT prove that God does exist as long as you are alive.

---

Nevertheless, non-believers are not the ones who should provide proof of a non-existence of something.

 

[lengy]

yea but i know that he exists
and thats the important part

You want to meet your supposed maker? Or is he going to some how 'save' you? How do you prefer the passage? Quick? Or slow and painful? You want your family to join you as well?

 

[blah88]

ill prove it to you when you and i are dead
but then you could just say the same thing
hmm
so does that mean that we cant say anything about the existence of God?
only God knows

heh heh heh

 

[Not-That-Bright]

anyone having doubts about the existence of God, go kill yourselves and find out...

anyone having doubts about the existance of Hades, go kill yourselves and find out...

but how can you say anything about God when you don't know what happens after you're dead?

So the only way to discover God is to be dead? I could say I'm a God and you'll never know until you're dead, what a fun game of idiocy.

you CANNOT prove that God doesn't exist as long as you are alive.

I don't think I can, nor do I think you can prove God does exist. I do however think God's non-existance is one of the purest truths we can know (if you're infering an influentual, personal God). If your God exists then all our logic crumbles into pointlessness.

 

[sufyan]

Hello people. God does exist.

 

[sufyan]

I know the 'limited-dependant' and 'ad infinitum' arguments may have been used before. But this thread is about 275 massive pages. I read back a bit...but I cant exactly read all 275 pages...so how about a continuation of the philosophical side of proof?

Begin by observing all that is around you. What can you indentify? When I look outside my room window, I see a mango tree, my granny flat, some random birds flying above, the wind gushing in, etc. Mum just came past and told me to get off the net. Take a look around yourself. Eventually you, too, will come to identify three distinct forms of existence...no more, no less. Three.

1) Animals (including humans) - I didnt mention Mum for no reason...
2) Life (something that makes living different from non-living)
3) Universe (including celestial bodies, elements that constitute the heavenly bodies and interstellar matter)

To solve the question of man, life and the universe...think about the commonalities between the three. Do you notice any similarities between your little brother, a date tree and (the now rejected) Pluto?

Perhaps we should start by observing what we know in certainty about these three. All of the previous information we have of these three, tells us that they have certain similarities and unchanging rules. Man, life and the universe are limited. Indeed all that we can perceive is limited.

Will get back to this discussion. Unfortunately, duty calls.

Anyone interested?

 

[KFunk]

Need it be necessary that there exist something which is unlimited?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Begin by observing all that is around you. What can you indentify?

Many things but most likely very little of the world which is. Humans occupy a narrow band of existance, only through scientific instruments can we come to understand what of our world exists beyond what we can see.

Take a look around yourself. Eventually you, too, will come to identify three distinct forms of existence...no more, no less. Three.

'three distinct forms of existence' ? I feel the beginning of some unfounded rhetoric... I mean for starters what do you mean by existance? Do you mean merely things that exist? If so I would claim there are 'two distinct forms of existence' which are matter and energy.

1) Animals (including humans) - I didnt mention Mum for no reason...
2) Life (something that makes living different from non-living)
3) Universe (including celestial bodies, elements that constitute the heavenly bodies and interstellar matter)

Why are animals different to life? Where are subatomic particles? What is wrong with scientific terminology of the existance of Energy and Matter?

To solve the question of man, life and the universe...think about the commonalities between the three. Do you notice any similarities between your little brother, a date tree and (the now rejected) Pluto?

Perhaps we should start by observing what we know in certainty about these three. All of the previous information we have of these three, tells us that they have certain similarities and unchanging rules. Man, life and the universe are limited. Indeed all that we can perceive is limited.

I fear you may be trying to pass off something simple as rather more complex by using convoluted language, but I'll wait to see what actual point you're getting to.

Will get back to this discussion. Unfortunately, duty calls.

Anyone interested?

Yep.

-----

Need it be necessary that there exist something which is unlimited?

This is what I was fearing he was getting to...

 

[sufyan]

Need it be necessary that there exist something which is unlimited?

So your thinking along these lines:

"I know that all that we percieve is limited...but how does anything we know necessitate the existence of an unlimited Creator."

Correct?

 

[sufyan]

Many things but most likely very little of the world which is. Humans occupy a narrow band of existance, only through scientific instruments can we come to understand what of our world exists beyond what we can see...

No scientist has been able to bring definite evidence that suggests the universe has no limits. So to suggest that it is infinite means we are going beyond the bounds of what we can rationally assess. Sucha thought requires us to challenge ourselves to find any example in our world of preception that is unlimited, no matter how hard we search we cannot find such an example.

Thus, once again, all we can preceive is limited, finite.

 

[KFunk]

So your thinking along these lines: "I know that all that we percieve is limited...but how does anything we know necessitate the existence of an unlimited Creator."

The latter part rather than the former. I.e. "How does anything we know necessitate the existence of an unlimited Creator?"

 

[lengy]

We can't perceive infinity, so?

 

[Josie]

Assuming that what we sense is limited, I'd like to see how this in any way shape or form relates to "God". I assume you're going to make a statement about God being unlimited.

 

[lengy]

God is the universe?! I thought he was a conscious supreme being, much like pixies, or gnomes who steal your socks from the washing machine?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No scientist has been able to bring definite evidence that suggests the universe has no limits.

Well for our known evidence, scientists have done quite the opposite. Beyond that, science pretty much weilds a large questionmark.

So to suggest that it is infinite means we are going beyond the bounds of what we can rationally assess.

I didn't.

Sucha thought requires us to challenge ourselves to find any example in our world of preception that is unlimited, no matter how hard we search we cannot find such an example.

ok? I do see problems with thinking in this way though, if we can't find an example of some perception which is unlimited, how do we even know what we mean when we speak of something being unlimited?

Thus, once again, all we can preceive is limited, finite.

Maybe that's all there is?

 

[Josie]

ok? I do see problems with thinking in this way though, if we can't find an example of some perception which is unlimited, how do we even know what we mean when we speak of something being unlimited?



Maybe that's all there is?

That's essentially what I meant.

 

[KFunk]

Thus, once again, all we can preceive is limited, finite.

Georg Cantor seemed to do a pretty good job of reeling in the infinite. I have read some replications of his arguments about different levels of infinity. Do you reject his results or do you think he might have succeeded in thinking and coming to conclusions about the infinite?

 

[sufyan]

Many things but most likely very little of the world which is. Humans occupy a narrow band of existance, only through scientific instruments can we come to understand what of our world exists beyond what we can see.

The arguments people use to say that God does not exist assume duality and finiteness. Which are flawed. You cannot apply duality or finiteness to 'The Creator of all that exists' - God.

For instance, the periodic table. Did it come about by chance? Then all life on this planet is by chance? And all matter came from energy that came from nothing?

Use the 5 senses - which ever one you wish to bring up - to explain the origin of this energy. Or easier how the energy became matter. Or when all the matter that was the same (ie Hydrogen) decided to pool together and form helium. You cant use the senses.

Theres no 'truth' that cannot be recognised by the mind. Otherwise it doesnt exist. Its an unknown truth - therefore not truth.

Clearly, the term "limited" needs further explanation. It is a description of essence. in other words it is an attribute or characteristic of an object. In the following discussion the word 'limited' is used in an all-encompassing and a very general meaning. 'limited' therefore includes dependence (suggesting a 'need'), a meaure of size, a slot in time, etc.

We can see that man is born and dies, and man cannot grow beyond a certain size in height and weight. All of life is simlarly limited, and the earth, moon and stars likewise have a starting and end point. The life of a star or galaxy may be a very long period of time, but they are definitely limited in that they all have a starting and ending.

The universe is a very large place yet it too is not unlimited or infinite. We that the planets, stars and intergalactic matter make up the universe. These are all finite objects by themselves. And since a collection of 'finite' objects will always result in a larger but still finite body, likewise the inverse being a larger set of finite objects, by necissity remains finite.

The process of addition does not transform the attributes of the operands. Limited objects will not transform into infinte objects simply by becoming greater in number. An example to clarify this point is that adding more sheep to a herd will not make them horses. The result is simply a larger (but finite) herd.

All we can perceive is thus limited, finite. Now can we all agree?

 

[lengy]

So you're arguing that a hydrogen atom is not a hydrogen atom but is a helium atom because the only difference between them is the number of neutrons, protons and electrons?

 

[lengy]

Man is only limited by his imagination. Man's physical form only limited by our ability to alter it's genetic attributes, of which is hindered by morality, ethics and religion. Free of these constraints and with greater financial backing it, eventually we will be able to alter humanity.