Pages:
Author

Topic: Why do you believe God exists? - page 20. (Read 7902 times)

legendary
Activity: 3388
Merit: 3514
born once atheist
November 06, 2018, 05:09:06 PM


"The question of God existence or non-existence is not even a scientific question."
it is most certainly a scientific question; just because you cant use your scientific method dont mean you cant use another.
"We are all born into one religion or other.  Very few people alive today were born in Atheist families.
This, of course, will change in the future as more and more people lose faith in the supernatural."
very few people were born in atheist families because atheists create fewer babes; see where this would go? maybe an endless cycle, but not change without some new thing to change peoples minds on a massive scale.
people see the same evidence, and take it as evidence for different beliefs; people see evidence and dont even see the same evidence.
we always see everything through the lens of our own worldviews. we use worldviews to interpret what we see. so,, iwas taught creationist
sphell, and so take everything ive learned with this lens. the existance of God is a scientific fact. standard geology is error, big bang cosmology is error, plate tectonics is error, bacteria evolving into hyenas and snakes evolving into birds is error; i wont say darwinism is error, as i love to look at insects and other creatures and think about how they evolved/adapted;(survival of the fittest can be a useful theory, but maybe i misuse darwinism in this writing.)  i like to think of my philosophy as darwinistic, i think of myself as a darwinist, but maybe im delusional.
"As for the God of the Gaps, well, we do have unknowns, let's leave them unknowns until they become known."
we need to assume something is true, because we will never have infinite knowledge. have to assume something, then you can build everything else on top of that.
Ok, whatever you say chief. Learn how to use the keyboard.  "{" vs "[", use the Preview button.
I think you are overly excited to disagree with me.

Felt kinda compelled to correct that clusterfuck (apologies if it's wrong, and yeah, definitely use preview...) as I was interested in the bolded  (I bolded it btw) part.
I was born not so much into an atheist family as a family that just never discussed anything remotely religious.
We had no need of it.  We did fine without involving any imaginary invisible entity in the sky. Thank you Mom and Dad.
I seem to recall as a 7 year old kid in school at playtime (the UK term for recess in USA, I'm  a british expat btw)after assembly,
(the daily morning ritual of singing hymns and prayers before start of school lessons) I'd always be like "hey do you believe in God" to all my friends
 because I had my doubts even at seven years old.
I was always thinking if grown-ups don't believe in Santa Claus why on earth do they believe in this supernatural God nonsense?
Haven't figured that out to this day....
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
November 06, 2018, 12:23:43 PM

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

Cool

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

Cool

''Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it'' No.

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

Cool

As I said many times, you can make as many assumptions as you want, it doesn't mean they are real. Saying ''therefore something outside the universe made it'' doesn't mean it's true since you have no evidence of it.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 05, 2018, 05:23:00 PM

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

Cool

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

Cool

''Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it'' No.

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
November 05, 2018, 03:29:55 PM

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

Cool

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

Cool

''Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it'' No.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 05, 2018, 02:25:41 PM

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

Cool

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
November 05, 2018, 12:59:16 PM

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.


I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  Wink

Cool

Define ''the idea of outside-the-universe'' then.

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

That's the only thing we can observe or prove.

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

Cool

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 05, 2018, 10:14:39 AM

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.


I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  Wink

Cool

Define ''the idea of outside-the-universe'' then.

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

That's the only thing we can observe or prove.

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
November 05, 2018, 07:51:25 AM

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.


I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  Wink

Cool

Define ''the idea of outside-the-universe'' then.

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

That's the only thing we can observe or prove.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 05, 2018, 04:10:07 AM

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.


I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  Wink

Cool
donator
Activity: 4760
Merit: 4323
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
November 04, 2018, 07:49:59 PM
I'd like to know.... What is it that compels you to believe in God? How can you argue for his existence?

I would say I was compelled to believe in God because I was raised in a house that held religion in high esteem.  Since then I have seen a lot of good done in my local community by various churches, leading me to believe that whether or not God "exists" in a physical sense, God's impact is definitely felt and used to do a lot of good, at least in the communities where I have lived.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
November 04, 2018, 05:39:29 PM
There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.



Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

Cool

'' Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.'' Who says so?
Show us an example of something making itself from nothing.



''If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.'' How are we going to have an example of this?
Why do you ask for an example of something you know never happens?



''This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.'' There is no real definition of ''outside the universe'' since it isn't know if such thing is possible


There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it.

Cool

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 03, 2018, 03:23:51 PM
There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.



Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

Cool

'' Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.'' Who says so?
Show us an example of something making itself from nothing.



''If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.'' How are we going to have an example of this?
Why do you ask for an example of something you know never happens?



''This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.'' There is no real definition of ''outside the universe'' since it isn't know if such thing is possible


There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
November 03, 2018, 10:38:58 AM
There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.



Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

Cool

'' Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.'' Who says so?

''If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.'' How are we going to have an example of this?

''This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.'' There is no real definition of ''outside the universe'' since it isn't know if such thing is possible

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 02, 2018, 02:32:33 PM
There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.



Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1195
November 02, 2018, 07:29:58 AM
There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.



Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 722
November 02, 2018, 06:30:06 AM
All of that is wrong because when applied to God, prove the existence of an even higher being, the creator of God, which would be proof that not even god is God.  

Also known as The Problem of the Creator of God

Quote
The problem of the creator of God is the controversy regarding the hypothetical cause responsible for the existence of God, presuming God exists. A common challenge to theistic propositions of a creator deity as a necessary first-cause explanation for the universe is the question: "Who created God?". It contests the proposition that the universe cannot exist without a creator by asserting that the creator of the universe must have the same restrictions. This, in turn, may lead to a problem of infinite regress wherein each newly presumed creator of a creator is itself presumed to have its own creator.
full member
Activity: 952
Merit: 175
@cryptocommies
November 01, 2018, 08:43:50 PM
All of that is wrong because when applied to God, prove the existence of an even higher being, the creator of God, which would be proof that not even god is God. 
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
November 01, 2018, 03:36:21 PM
There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

4. Proof of the degrees of being - people talk about the various degrees of perfection of an object only through comparisons with the most perfect. This means that there is the most beautiful, the most noble, the best - that is God.

5. Proof through target cause. In the world of rational and unreasonable creatures, the expediency of activity is observed, which means that there is a rational being who sets a goal for everything that exists in the world - this being we call God
There are some perfect proofs http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm, they are so god damn good, that i cant even stop laughing.

+ 2

These are some solid proofs.  BADecker himself used few of them on this forum, so they all must be true.  Watch him, he is going to come out of the shadows and cut&paste his 5 links to other threads to proof that God in fact exists.  Any minute now...

If only God would care to post on this thread, oh, well, impossible will be impossible, no matter how hard we hope for it.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 01, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

4. Proof of the degrees of being - people talk about the various degrees of perfection of an object only through comparisons with the most perfect. This means that there is the most beautiful, the most noble, the best - that is God.

5. Proof through target cause. In the world of rational and unreasonable creatures, the expediency of activity is observed, which means that there is a rational being who sets a goal for everything that exists in the world - this being we call God
There are some perfect proofs http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm, they are so god damn good, that i cant even stop laughing.

Good point. If you can't falsify the proofs, make a joke out of them.

Cool
jr. member
Activity: 112
Merit: 4
Look ARROUND!
November 01, 2018, 03:19:45 PM
There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

4. Proof of the degrees of being - people talk about the various degrees of perfection of an object only through comparisons with the most perfect. This means that there is the most beautiful, the most noble, the best - that is God.

5. Proof through target cause. In the world of rational and unreasonable creatures, the expediency of activity is observed, which means that there is a rational being who sets a goal for everything that exists in the world - this being we call God
There are some perfect proofs http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm, they are so god damn good, that i cant even stop laughing.
Pages:
Jump to: