Look into a mirror. Examine yourself. Then come back and tell me there is no God. 
Philosophical Arguments For Gods Existance
- Thread starter Brian J. Rivera
- Start date
Haha, yes. Reminds me of Isaac Newton saying the palm of his hand is proof enough.Look into a mirror. Examine yourself. Then come back and tell me there is no God.
Isaac Newton made many profound quotes. Here is one I really like ''No being exists or can exist which is not related to space in some way. God is everywhere, created minds are somewhere, and body is in the space that it occupies; and whatever is neither everywhere nor anywhere does not exist. And hence it follows that space is an effect arising from the first existence of being, because when any being is postulated, space is postulated."
A Christian philosopher I like named Peter Kreeft made this statement: "There is the music of Bach, therefore there must be a God."
While I understand it and appreciate it, today's skeptic will discard this as no argument at all.
While I understand it and appreciate it, today's skeptic will discard this as no argument at all.
No creation is possible without a creator, it's as simple as that.
Maybe I'm being a bit fundamentalist but I think Christians shouldn't even accept to debate the existance of God, especially with militant atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens). That's playing the enemy's game, God is not debatable.
Maybe I'm being a bit fundamentalist but I think Christians shouldn't even accept to debate the existance of God, especially with militant atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens). That's playing the enemy's game, God is not debatable.
A lot of the time it does seem like a waste of time since sometimes their reason for debate is intended to humiliate and insult, not actually get to the bottom of it (not all, but some). At least in regards to the New Atheist movement.
I do think it's important to discussion and even debate as a means of defending the faith when the opportunity arises. I think because of lack of these things or ability has lead to so many people abandoning Christianity because it is "stupid, simple, illogical -- how gullible can they be?"
On Atheism....http://www.man-made.net/anti.html
If you can't believe in God, chances are your God is too small. ~ James Phillips
No one can be an unbeliever nowadays. The Christian Apologists have left one
nothing to disbelieve. ~ Hector Hugh Munro
An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident. ~ Francis Thompson
Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness
as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity
(in the Harvard sense) of saying that the universe just happened to happen and
that when we're dead we're dead? ~ John Updike
A disbelief in God does not result in a belief in nothing; disbelief in God usually
results in a belief in anything. ~Arthur Lynch
The only atheism is the denial of truth.~Arthur Lynch
The three great apostles of practical atheism, that make converts without
persecuting, and retain them without preaching, are wealth, health and power. ~ C C Colton
Atheist's don't exist. If you ask anyone why they are an atheist they will proceed
to explain their religion of non belief.~ Monksarnn
An atheist is one who hopes the Lord will do nothing to disturb his disbelief. ~ Franklin P. Jones
No man will say, "There is no God" 'till he is so hardened in sin that it has
become his interest that there should be none to call him to account.~ Mathew Henry
If you can't believe in God, chances are your God is too small. ~ James Phillips
No one can be an unbeliever nowadays. The Christian Apologists have left one
nothing to disbelieve. ~ Hector Hugh Munro
An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident. ~ Francis Thompson
Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness
as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity
(in the Harvard sense) of saying that the universe just happened to happen and
that when we're dead we're dead? ~ John Updike
A disbelief in God does not result in a belief in nothing; disbelief in God usually
results in a belief in anything. ~Arthur Lynch
The only atheism is the denial of truth.~Arthur Lynch
The three great apostles of practical atheism, that make converts without
persecuting, and retain them without preaching, are wealth, health and power. ~ C C Colton
Atheist's don't exist. If you ask anyone why they are an atheist they will proceed
to explain their religion of non belief.~ Monksarnn
An atheist is one who hopes the Lord will do nothing to disturb his disbelief. ~ Franklin P. Jones
No man will say, "There is no God" 'till he is so hardened in sin that it has
become his interest that there should be none to call him to account.~ Mathew Henry
I'm on the fence about open debates. Indeed you're not likely to win over the opponent, many who listen may have a profound seed planted. It would really need to be something the Lord in involved with and that can only be determined by the speaker. We need to remember the word of God in this matter:
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV)
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
I'm not much of a debater... I'll try to answer questions, but if they're adamant, I don't even try. At work I have this quote:
"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion."
"It is impossible for anyone to learn that which he thinks he already knows."
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV)
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
I'm not much of a debater... I'll try to answer questions, but if they're adamant, I don't even try. At work I have this quote:
"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion."
"It is impossible for anyone to learn that which he thinks he already knows."
I agree its wise to consider your advice, lest we find ourselves labouring for a catch in barren waters.
I should think that following the leadership of the Spirit precedes success unto conversion.
This quote resonates to strategy
For something is believed if faith is rejected.
What is it?
What objective truth can defend it?
The burden of "proof" moves to both ends
Glomung
Account Closed
I read an article today that has some bearing on this argument.
The long and short of it was that two scientists that promoted the notion of the persistence of conciousness
outside of the body had been vilified by the "modern materialists".
There is a group who are sure that nothing outside of crude matter exists.
They are not particularly rational and hard to deal with.
The long and short of it was that two scientists that promoted the notion of the persistence of conciousness
outside of the body had been vilified by the "modern materialists".
There is a group who are sure that nothing outside of crude matter exists.
They are not particularly rational and hard to deal with.
A strategy to consider
(Hegel) - mysticism void of objective argument
I typically will challenge the materialist in the kindest way possible that the founders of pantheistic styled materialism used mystical far-reaching fantasy to justify an unsubstantiated ruling-morphing-collective of particles (despots in power), to violently exterminate other subservient morphing-collective particles (innocent people), simply because their particle-positions did not align with the ruling-State-particles, who forces a vision of aligned-oneness.
(Marx) - scientific fantasy void of objective argument
Materialism then mutated to a scientific version that challenges for a political-dialectic (dialectical-materialism) which would resolve to brutal totalitarianism first and a utopian Godless society second. Yet again leading particles thrash subservient particles when they disagree.
(No Sound Ethics) - materialism is unsubstantiated since no sound ethics support it
I argue both Hegelian and Marxian ideology are "without" sound ethics. The very best possible recourse is for them to use a "subjective quasi-utilitarian ethic" which would justify any arbitrary violence desired in the name of producing, "the greatest good for the greatest number (particles)." This of course is an easy argument to win, for its impossible to "ethically and subjectively force an arbitrary good-end upon society." For what is a good-end in a world of particles and which particles are good?
IF the universe was billions of years old, AND IF man was not unique but one of many varied civilised inhabited planets evolving, it would be Logical to assume that some of those civilisations were more primitive and some more advanced. IF they were more advanced, by how much, a million years? Most of man technical brilliance has only come about in the last 150 years, therefore imagine IF another planet were a million years ahead of us. Could such a civilisation create stars? or manipulate DNA at the atomic level or travel at light speed etc. But wait theres more, what happened for the trillions of years before anything like a big bang occurred? were there other big bangs, millions, trillions, quadtrillions, time is infinite...wait i'm getting dizzy...
The only problem with that is that it makes no sense. Mankind is accountable for sin. Accountable for sin = we need a Savior. Jesus would not die twice. God does not create mankind with no hope, He is not evil. So, no civilization / other type of intelligent being prior to Adam or in any other universe, other then the angels, makes sense.
The Bible is only concerned with God's relationship with the humankind He created on this planet. Whether or not He created other life forms elsewhere is not denied in the Bible it is simply not a matter of our concern (He is God and can and may have and I am sure did many other things we are not made privy to). But Thallon, to assume a before big bang (or the beginning as we would call it) is not simple to explain as a possibility. The Bible infers God is...then He created (beginning, big bang, whatever) so the beginning did not occur "within or at some distant point IN time because "time", like space, is a function of "this Universe" (thus less than or a mere aspect of)...therefore if there was a beginning it is a logical fallacy to "assume" a before such a beginning as then chronos or linear time would already have had to exist and if it did then it had to exist somehwere which implies space also would have had to exist and from these it follows that "matter/energy" would have had to exist within these from which all we know know exists and thus the idea of a beginning is then a logical absurdity.
Time came into existence "with" the creation...! Think about it...
In His love
Paul
Time came into existence "with" the creation...! Think about it...
In His love
Paul
Welcome THALLON
Is it possible that your thought process would rationalize the technology of God in the deep expanses of time?
Is it also possible in your scenario of timeless development that a Supreme being could exist, also managing it as He would see fit?
What if He in this timeless expanse was not limited by linear-time, and could create a microcosm subjected to linear-time where very infantile beings (mankind) could be cultivated in love unto to maturity for His own purpose? What if by doing so He would strategically choose to hide His true form in this visible natural life and require faith to believe in what is unseen? What if, in this cultivated garden a reconciliation process of redemption would lie at its centre where mankind would determine the ethical differences of good and evil? What if the saving grace for this garden materialized in the flesh as Christ who then cultivated further what is, was and will be His though time?
Yet I understand your point - time is a powerful element for advancement
I myself do not believe in aliens, or an alien god.
I believe that God came to exist in the dark matter void of forever.
That all dark matter is an ocean of particles in random chaos,
then at a time some of those particles formed a thought and the thought became God,
and He learned how to manipulate the chaos dark matter to form order.
I believe right now, that God sees everything and anything from the micro subatomic to the galactic.
But He is a being of intelligence and not a starwars force.
He is like an ocean and we are like small fish.
We don't know He is all around us. We, as small fish, don't comprehend just how incredibly
huge and vast He stretches and how much power He has,
with his fingers, if he had fingers, he could snuff out the Sun like putting out a match,
He could push and move the Galaxy and know as he was doing it if you had a mite on your hair, or a virus in your nose.
I believe He created the universe in six literal 24 hour days, not lengths of time, but 24hours. The whole universe.
I believe when Noahs flood was on, He pushed the great single island apart to form the continents, over weeks if not days, if not hours.
and what the future holds is FANTASTIC.
I believe that God came to exist in the dark matter void of forever.
That all dark matter is an ocean of particles in random chaos,
then at a time some of those particles formed a thought and the thought became God,
and He learned how to manipulate the chaos dark matter to form order.
I believe right now, that God sees everything and anything from the micro subatomic to the galactic.
But He is a being of intelligence and not a starwars force.
He is like an ocean and we are like small fish.
We don't know He is all around us. We, as small fish, don't comprehend just how incredibly
huge and vast He stretches and how much power He has,
with his fingers, if he had fingers, he could snuff out the Sun like putting out a match,
He could push and move the Galaxy and know as he was doing it if you had a mite on your hair, or a virus in your nose.
I believe He created the universe in six literal 24 hour days, not lengths of time, but 24hours. The whole universe.
I believe when Noahs flood was on, He pushed the great single island apart to form the continents, over weeks if not days, if not hours.
and what the future holds is FANTASTIC.
I have thought about god being created hinself, but I cannot find a version of this that does not suggest that the pre-existing substance is greater than god. Think about it if god was created from this substance than he was weaker at one point.
Anything, including God, that has structure must be made of chaos particles. The natural primal state is Chaos without God. God is an wonderful one in eternity formation of particles into a thought structure. Though God is born out of the primal substance of a dark matter eternal universe, not created, this is not a weakness but an advantage, he can manipulate everything because he is made up of the base material of everything. We on the other hand are massive in size, structure, order and function. He had to design us from the ground up, he had to work out how to make the atoms electrons photos interact to hold our physical structure together let alone all the minerals, periodic elements, the brain heart lungs how they breakdown food into basic elements, the homones etc etc etc.
God exist and is aware at the microuniverse level and the macrouniverse level.
God exist and is aware at the microuniverse level and the macrouniverse level.
In kindness you make a bold statement to scientifically define the very essence of God and reduce Him to material, particles or matter. Would you be willing to provide a premise that would objectively solidify your case?
This statement would cause one to assume that you are a materialist. Is materialism your premise?
Do you reject a spiritual dimension or existence that is separate from particles or material, a spiritual God that would design all things from scripture? Would you reject the concept that God was He who “created” all matter and “created” all particles?
Please forgive my antagonism, yet I must ask...
What evidence do you have that would objectively prove that God “was born?”
What is the “primal substance” that you are referring to?
What is the “base material” that you are referring to?
Please communicate an assertoric and objective foundation that would justify a God of scientific materialism.
By your previous sentence above, if “God is born out of the primal substance” and is also “made up of the base material of everything,” and then “designed us from the ground up”, are we not then made of the same “material as God” according to the proposed logic? Thus are you advocating Pantheism to say we are all God-particles?
How do you differentiate “Gods material” from “our material?” What objective truth do you have that would suggest materialism is assertoric and objective truth?
Though we can agree that God is omniscient, define what is the “microuniverse” and the “macrouniverse.”
THALLON, please forgive me if I come across too antagonistic
I remember I posted something like this before, but I cannot find it. Anyway I would like to discuss the evidence for god. Is there any, if so what level of proof does it have? Please be critical with the propositions that I make. I put ~(tilda) by the ones i have some doubt over.
1. Things that cannot be disproved usually hold some level of truth in our world.
2. God cannot be disproved therefore
3. This idea probably holds some truth in our world
1.Laws exist therefore something must have made the laws~~~~~
2.that something must be either external or able to change the laws in our universe~~~~~
3. Therefore god exists~~~~
Universes outside of ours maybe radically different from ours. Therefore there are different rules and unexpected phenomena may occur. There are probably infinite possibilities that could occur or have occured and an all powerful god could be one ~~~~~~is this an ad hoc?
Also I doubt the kalam argument~~~~~ I feel like there is a jump from beginning, to cause, to god did it. I also do not understand why the first premise is "true".
When something is powerful it has more of an effect on the amount of other things. Whatever exists outside our universe has an effect on it. This effect is the greatest of effects and can be explained by god.
The bible conforms with reality some of the most complex reality and is therefore true.~~~~~This one is kind of iffy
ontological argument~~~~ I don't understand any of it.
Personally I do not think god can be proven, but he can be believed with some certainty.
1. Things that cannot be disproved usually hold some level of truth in our world.
2. God cannot be disproved therefore
3. This idea probably holds some truth in our world
1.Laws exist therefore something must have made the laws~~~~~
2.that something must be either external or able to change the laws in our universe~~~~~
3. Therefore god exists~~~~
Universes outside of ours maybe radically different from ours. Therefore there are different rules and unexpected phenomena may occur. There are probably infinite possibilities that could occur or have occured and an all powerful god could be one ~~~~~~is this an ad hoc?
Also I doubt the kalam argument~~~~~ I feel like there is a jump from beginning, to cause, to god did it. I also do not understand why the first premise is "true".
When something is powerful it has more of an effect on the amount of other things. Whatever exists outside our universe has an effect on it. This effect is the greatest of effects and can be explained by god.
The bible conforms with reality some of the most complex reality and is therefore true.~~~~~This one is kind of iffy
ontological argument~~~~ I don't understand any of it.
Personally I do not think god can be proven, but he can be believed with some certainty.