Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Graustein]

i only seek truth. The Flying Spaghetti Monsters existance is truth. accept his Noodley Appendage so you can enter into his Pasta Plate and bask in The Flying Spaghetti's loving Appendage.

This lends a whole new meaning to the term "copypasta"

 

[nikolas]

This lends a whole new meaning to the term "copypasta"

Rofl

 

[J-Smart]

I would of had thought - this argument may have been a whole heap more interesting. It is only after reading the last couple of pages I found it has come down to with no real substance.

 

[J-Smart]

The 'problem' of proving the existence of God, in the case of the divinity of Christ can actually be explored. From a purely philosophical notion of thought, the existence of Jesus himself reflects on the "economic" formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as God has chosen to communicate himself with humanity, and the reason why He does this is the "immanent" formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Thus, it is strictly speaking possible to link the idea of a Kantian thought about the "transcendental" experience, as proof alone of the existence of God. This is because human beings are finite in their knowledge, and so the transcendental experience, is unexplainable. This is how we prove God's existence using the "absolute mystery" argument and line of thought. The proof of Jesus as the Son of God is in that alone. The fact that God has revealed Himself to humanity - creating a link between incarnation and grace. Grace in itself is proof of the existence of God, simply because the revelation of God's self to human beings is incarnate in the word, providing an objective reality that is 'without' which elements our hearing, through the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, 'within'. Thus, grace is what constitutes human existence, and thereby stating the 'pure nature' argument, is pointless, as it will be "counter-factual." This is very very simple philosophy.

 

[KFunk]

Thus, it is strictly speaking possible to link the idea of a Kantian thought about the "transcendental" experience, as proof alone of the existence of God.

You claim the argument is possible - so please, reproduce it for us (btw: be aware that Kantian metaphysics is controversial enough that it can't simply be assumed).

 

[Colonel.Burton]

god is just a figment of our imagination that we would like to believe exists

our imagination is a powerful thing, from our brain we created star wars, lord of the rings and... the terminator

most of us would like those fantasy's exist, but sadly they dont, star wars weddings dont cut the real thing

if god was real, santa clause might as well be real too, i would know because my uncle iss santa clause, he sucks a vortex in houses without chimneys to get in if your wondering

 

[mitty-waine]

i dont think it matters if he is real or not what matters is how god affects different people if it is in a postive way then there is nothing rong with it and dose any1 know y we always call god a 'he'??

 

[Garygaz]

i dont think it matters if he is real or not what matters is how god affects different people if it is in a postive way then there is nothing rong with it and dose any1 know y we always call god a 'he'??

Because males have been the dominant gender for thousands of years, hence giving them the ability to write the history books. Jesus referred to God as the father?

Heres my 2 cents:

Say time, instead of being measured in a linear way like we do now against the earths movement around the sun, was rather measured to an external source completely unrelated to the universe (hypothetically of course, don't shun me with your science bravado). So, the universe is about 14 billion years old, under current models, but why is it 14 billion years old? Why is it not 100 Trillion years old? If it is assumed the very beginning point of the big-bang process was the creation of matter by energy (which has always existed, yes?) why would it have happened at that specific point in time as opposed to the infinite amount of time (well if not speaking in terms of time, the infinite amount of possibilities) there was to happen before it? Like trying to put a bit of an equation on this, lets say the chance of the big bang happening is 100 x10^500 (random number) for every period of time energy exists (bare with me even if you think time was created after the big bang) and eventually this process was bound to occur, because it has existed infinitely long. Shouldn't it have ALSO then occurred infinite amount of times before? (That's if you get my angle)

 

[Enteebee]

The 'problem' of proving the existence of God, in the case of the divinity of Christ can actually be explored. From a purely philosophical notion of thought, the existence of Jesus himself reflects on the "economic" formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as God has chosen to communicate himself with humanity, and the reason why He does this is the "immanent" formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Thus, it is strictly speaking possible to link the idea of a Kantian thought about the "transcendental" experience, as proof alone of the existence of God. This is because human beings are finite in their knowledge, and so the transcendental experience, is unexplainable. This is how we prove God's existence using the "absolute mystery" argument and line of thought. The proof of Jesus as the Son of God is in that alone. The fact that God has revealed Himself to humanity - creating a link between incarnation and grace. Grace in itself is proof of the existence of God, simply because the revelation of God's self to human beings is incarnate in the word, providing an objective reality that is 'without' which elements our hearing, through the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, 'within'. Thus, grace is what constitutes human existence, and thereby stating the 'pure nature' argument, is pointless, as it will be "counter-factual." This is very very simple philosophy.

It is also very, very simple philosophy that you organize your thoughts better so that someone can more easily respond to it. I see nothing here that proves God, a lot of metaphysical speculation which I would reject, but no proof of God.

 

[J-Smart]

All that a philosopher has to state, is the general causality argument, which has been irrefutable.

 

[Enteebee]

All that a philosopher has to state, is the general causality argument, which has been irrefutable.

This sort of reasoning has been responded to by the atheists in this thread.

 

[J-Smart]

This sort of reasoning has been responded to by the atheists in this thread.

Well then can you propose how the 'general causality' argument for the existence of God is incorrect? And further, I can only see rebuttal that is implementing a deductive line of thought. Can you provide an inductive reason, refuting the 'general causality' argument.

 

[KFunk]

Well then can you propose how the 'general causality' argument for the existence of God is incorrect? And further, I can only see rebuttal that is implementing a deductive line of thought. Can you provide an inductive reason, refuting the 'general causality' argument.

Inductive arguments are generally softer than hard-nosed deductive arguments. Nonetheless, one might argue that the success of the method of natural science (thus far) implies that it makes sense to apply the same method to the problem of the origin of the universe. It has generally been found that we can discover simple, relatively mechanistic prinicples underlying the functioning of most of the universe. In contrast, supernatural explanations invoking divine forces or beings have not stood up to observation. By induction one would also expect to obtain a naturalistic explanation for the universe.

As I stated above, inductive reasoning is generally fairly weak. In any case, this is the kind of inductive argument you might expect. I don't quite understand what your gripe with deductive argument is??

 

[J-Smart]

This sort of reasoning has been responded to by the atheists in this thread.

My response would be that there may be a naturalistic solution that we have yet to know (just as when our ancestors felt the earth quake they didn't know about plate tectonics). We know that the natural exists, we do not know that the supernatural exists. To imagine that the supernatural is the answer requires us to go completely out of our way and create a new realm of existence, the imagine that it's a natural answer we do not yet know of (i.e. to piss some of you off and use Dawkin's terminology it is 'perinormal') seems far more logical as it is something which we have experienced in the past.

Te spiritual relam of existence embodies within a human being free will and as evident in human being an intellectual ability. This is just as important and as real as the preposition about th naturalistic thought. Furthermore, the naturalistic solution you are proposing is not even taking into account the face that there was a time when species did not inhabit the Earth - and to say that this occured due to a purely naturalistic cause, then I say to you explain the development of a soul, what evidence from the evolutionary line or traces of fossils, is able to show us the development of a soul, or the individual conscience coming from somethig before ourselves?

Furthermore, the naturalistic thought that you propose is flawed in itself. The arguments provided by scientists , and prominent physcists to be specific - is that the world had an exact time. The question I will ask is if scientists propose this process of the creation of the universe had a beginning, how then did it originate? Thus, it is difficult to state that mass and matter and motion were created - if scientists propose that the universe itself is not eternal and has a specific point in which it originated. Thus, the universe itself is eternal - unless you can show me how matter had a exact time in which it was present in the origin of the universe.

 

[KFunk]

Two issues with your above post:

- You can't argue from the existence of the soul without first giving us good reason to believe that souls do in fact exist.

- Scientists talk about the beggining of the 'observed' universe. Some theories do involve an eternal 'metaverse' of sorts (and some don't). Be careful about boxing scientists into one single position. Scientific practice is far more diverse than that.

 

[J-Smart]

Two issues with your above post:

- You can't argue from the existence of the soul without first giving us good reason to believe that souls do in fact exist.

- Scientists talk about the beggining of the 'observed' universe. Some theories do involve an eternal 'metaverse' of sorts (and some don't). Be careful about boxing scientists into one single position. Scientific practice is far more diverse than that.

The existence of the soul read Phaedo.

The beginning of the universe - if the beginning of the universe in the case of scientists who argue it had an exact time in which it began - can they explain how it originated. If they implement matter, it would then make matter eternal.

 

[Enteebee]

It is incorrect in principle because it is assuming the rules which we know (i.e. cause and effect, time, etc) will apply outside of our current 'observable' universe. Our universe may have no cause, the question may be utterly meaningless (cause and effect may be taken to imply time, the universe may have existed at t=0). What may have come before our universe is necessarily nothing more than a mathematical construct (and one which is likely inaccurate) because it can only be based on what we know about our universe, and those concepts may or may not apply.

We cannot explore the realms which may exist beyond our own reality, we are trapped in it and no matter how much we attempt to we seem to only have the reference point of ourselves. I only believe we can know provisional truth, that is to say that I find truth in statements geared to the affect of what "we seem to know at this point in time, but may ultimately be flawed".

Te spiritual relam of existence embodies within a human being free will and as evident in human being an intellectual ability.

Everything you claim is 'the soul' I believe connects with physical properties in the brain. The soul appears to be nothing more than a synonym for consciousness, and consciousness is just the emergent illusion of many physical happenings on the micro level - Which the emergent property is not actively aware of, existing in its macrocosm.

As a side note, I believe free will in the sense you speak of it is rather unimportant. Even if the universe is entirely deterministic I do not feel although I do not have freedom, just as if it is a swirl of chaos I do not feel although I have more freedom.

 

[KFunk]

The existence of the soul read Phaedo.

The beginning of the universe - if the beginning of the universe in the case of scientists who argue it had an exact time in which it began - can they explain how it originated. If they implement matter, it would then make matter eternal.

(1) On Phaedo: I've read several parts of Phaedo - the arguments don't hold up given present knowledge. Firstly, an immortal soul is not required to explain why you can lead a slave boy through basic geometrical proofs - today we have genetics and theories of innateness to explain this (think Chomsky style universal grammar or the more contentious notion of innate morality - Cosmides and Tooby have provided strong arguments for innate forms of moral logic/grammar). Secondly, Platonic forms, to be pretentious for a second, are somewhat passe. Contemporary metaphysics is much more refined. Thirdly, we no longer need any kind of mystery essence to explain life - we have molecular and cellular biology.

Finally, in the absence of recollection, Platonic forms and life essence, the arguments of Phaedo have no legs on which to stand. The fact that you chose Phaedo as proof of the immortal soul inclines me to call troll.

(2) The universe: sure, matter could feasibly be an eternal substance in some theories.

 

[Lukybear]

Isnt this ironic? The fact people here use philosophical reasoning to disprove an omnipotent being. We must keep in mind that omnipotence is beyond human comprehension, beyond the laws of physics and beyond philosophical arguments.

If that there is truly a God, (I belive so very much), then in his presence philosophy, science and logistics are pointless.

However if your all arguing for arguements sake, please continue, its being fun to read!

 

[Enteebee]

Isnt this ironic? The fact people here use philosophical reasoning to disprove an omnipotent being. We must keep in mind that omnipotence is beyond human comprehension, beyond the laws of physics and beyond philosophical arguments.

If that there is truly a God, (I belive so very much), then in his presence philosophy, science and logistics are pointless.

However if your all arguing for arguements sake, please continue, its being fun to read!

If there is a G-d then I agree she seems necessarily outside of human comprehension... As is any supernatural explanation imo. The point being, you say you believe in God, yet there is no more reason to believe in God than to believe in fairies and this is entirely illogical.