Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Arguments in favor of "God" ...

PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 10:36:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
For me, there are three ideas that stand as support of the existence of God.

One is the fact that existence is ordered. The energy that is being expressed as the universe is not being expressed as pure chaos. There are limits within the expressed chaos that enable order to occur. And it's through the relationship between chaos and order that the universe exists as it does. This simple and unavoidable fact forces us to consider the origin of those limitations, from which order has sprung. It doesn't prove that God exists, but it certainly invites the mind to contemplate this mysterious creative source, and the possibility of some purpose to existence (as order implies purpose).

The second is the phenomena of gestalt. Gestalt is a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements that, when unified as a whole, its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. The configuration results in a phenomena that far surpasses the possibilities inherent in the sum of the parts being configured. As an example: matter from energy, life from matter, and consciousness from living matter. Each opens up a whole new realm of existential possibilities that were not previously enabled and were not endemic to the elements involved. Gestalt shows us that the possibilities inherent within existence transcend our comprehension of it. And thus throws the door wide open to the very real possibility of God.

And the third bit of strong evidence for the existence of God is experiential. We humans need for God to exist, and that need is being fulfilled. It is built into our nature as human beings to seek the source and purpose of our own being. And we acquired our nature through our place within the nature of the universe as a whole. In a very real way, the universe is contemplating it's own existence, through us. And all of existence is then seeking God.

Atheists like to use the "God of the gaps" argument against theism, but they completely overlook the significance of their own observations, which is that the gap exists! The gap is there, and is real, and is within us all, even the atheists, themselves. It is that gap that us to need and to seek after God in the first place. And that gap, that need, is there as an expression of the whole universe, as we are manifestations of the universe expressing itself.

I've heard the atheist's arguments against these evidences, but have found that they just don't hold their water.

What say you?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 10:45:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 10:36:02 AM, PureX wrote:
For me, there are three ideas that stand as support of the existence of God.

One is the fact that existence is ordered. The energy that is being expressed as the universe is not being expressed as pure chaos. There are limits within the expressed chaos that enable order to occur. And it's through the relationship between chaos and order that the universe exists as it does. This simple and unavoidable fact forces us to consider the origin of those limitations, from which order has sprung. It doesn't prove that God exists, but it certainly invites the mind to contemplate this mysterious creative source, and the possibility of some purpose to existence (as order implies purpose).

The second is the phenomena of gestalt. Gestalt is a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements that, when unified as a whole, its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. The configuration results in a phenomena that far surpasses the possibilities inherent in the sum of the parts being configured. As an example: matter from energy, life from matter, and consciousness from living matter. Each opens up a whole new realm of existential possibilities that were not previously enabled and were not endemic to the elements involved. Gestalt shows us that the possibilities inherent within existence transcend our comprehension of it. And thus throws the door wide open to the very real possibility of God.

And the third bit of strong evidence for the existence of God is experiential. We humans need for God to exist, and that need is being fulfilled. It is built into our nature as human beings to seek the source and purpose of our own being. And we acquired our nature through our place within the nature of the universe as a whole. In a very real way, the universe is contemplating it's own existence, through us. And all of existence is then seeking God.

Atheists like to use the "God of the gaps" argument against theism, but they completely overlook the significance of their own observations, which is that the gap exists! The gap is there, and is real, and is within us all, even the atheists, themselves. It is that gap that us to need and to seek after God in the first place. And that gap, that need, is there as an expression of the whole universe, as we are manifestations of the universe expressing itself.

I've heard the atheist's arguments against these evidences, but have found that they just don't hold their water.

What say you?

I say the first two do nothing more than establish god as a possibility, which isn't "support" or "arguments in favor of" and the last doesn't even establish god as a possibility. Humans have a "need" or tendency toward a lot of things. I'll fully admit that we are predisposed toward superstitious beliefs (of which belief in gods a a type of); that doesn't validate them, it just means we're fundamentally irrational creatures.

And you apparently don't know what the "God of the gaps" means.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 12:23:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 10:36:02 AM, PureX wrote:
For me, there are three ideas that stand as support of the existence of God.

One is the fact that existence is ordered. The energy that is being expressed as the universe is not being expressed as pure chaos. There are limits within the expressed chaos that enable order to occur. And it's through the relationship between chaos and order that the universe exists as it does. This simple and unavoidable fact forces us to consider the origin of those limitations, from which order has sprung. It doesn't prove that God exists, but it certainly invites the mind to contemplate this mysterious creative source, and the possibility of some purpose to existence (as order implies purpose).

The second is the phenomena of gestalt. Gestalt is a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements that, when unified as a whole, its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. The configuration results in a phenomena that far surpasses the possibilities inherent in the sum of the parts being configured. As an example: matter from energy, life from matter, and consciousness from living matter. Each opens up a whole new realm of existential possibilities that were not previously enabled and were not endemic to the elements involved. Gestalt shows us that the possibilities inherent within existence transcend our comprehension of it. And thus throws the door wide open to the very real possibility of God.

And the third bit of strong evidence for the existence of God is experiential. We humans need for God to exist, and that need is being fulfilled. It is built into our nature as human beings to seek the source and purpose of our own being. And we acquired our nature through our place within the nature of the universe as a whole. In a very real way, the universe is contemplating it's own existence, through us. And all of existence is then seeking God.

Atheists like to use the "God of the gaps" argument against theism, but they completely overlook the significance of their own observations, which is that the gap exists! The gap is there, and is real, and is within us all, even the atheists, themselves. It is that gap that us to need and to seek after God in the first place. And that gap, that need, is there as an expression of the whole universe, as we are manifestations of the universe expressing itself.

I've heard the atheist's arguments against these evidences, but have found that they just don't hold their water.

What say you?

Actually matter come from life, just like you body is able to develop when the life force is present, without the presence of life energy there is no question of development......
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 12:41:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 10:45:26 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/10/2013 10:36:02 AM, PureX wrote:
For me, there are three ideas that stand as support of the existence of God.

One is the fact that existence is ordered. The energy that is being expressed as the universe is not being expressed as pure chaos. There are limits within the expressed chaos that enable order to occur. And it's through the relationship between chaos and order that the universe exists as it does. This simple and unavoidable fact forces us to consider the origin of those limitations, from which order has sprung. It doesn't prove that God exists, but it certainly invites the mind to contemplate this mysterious creative source, and the possibility of some purpose to existence (as order implies purpose).

The second is the phenomena of gestalt. Gestalt is a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements that, when unified as a whole, its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. The configuration results in a phenomena that far surpasses the possibilities inherent in the sum of the parts being configured. As an example: matter from energy, life from matter, and consciousness from living matter. Each opens up a whole new realm of existential possibilities that were not previously enabled and were not endemic to the elements involved. Gestalt shows us that the possibilities inherent within existence transcend our comprehension of it. And thus throws the door wide open to the very real possibility of God.

And the third bit of strong evidence for the existence of God is experiential. We humans need for God to exist, and that need is being fulfilled. It is built into our nature as human beings to seek the source and purpose of our own being. And we acquired our nature through our place within the nature of the universe as a whole. In a very real way, the universe is contemplating it's own existence, through us. And all of existence is then seeking God.

Atheists like to use the "God of the gaps" argument against theism, but they completely overlook the significance of their own observations, which is that the gap exists! The gap is there, and is real, and is within us all, even the atheists, themselves. It is that gap that us to need and to seek after God in the first place. And that gap, that need, is there as an expression of the whole universe, as we are manifestations of the universe expressing itself.

I've heard the atheist's arguments against these evidences, but have found that they just don't hold their water.

What say you?

I say the first two do nothing more than establish god as a possibility, which isn't "support" or "arguments in favor of"...

The first supports the proposition that there is some external organizing force to existence as we know it. And the second exemplifies that assertion with examples from within existence as we know it. You can argue that neither of these define that source/force, but few definitions of God propose or require such special definition.

... and the last doesn't even establish god as a possibility. Humans have a "need" or tendency toward a lot of things. I'll fully admit that we are predisposed toward superstitious beliefs (of which belief in gods a a type of); that doesn't validate them, it just means we're fundamentally irrational creatures.

But you are excusing the phenomena in advance of any explanation. First, this is not an insignificant need; it has been a driving force within humanity from as far back as we can investigate. And that drive is so strong in us that it has often driven us to kill ourselves and each other. Yet there seems to be no real evolutionary advantage to it that would explain it's power and duration as a human characteristic. Excusing it as silly superstition may work well for your argument, but it sure comes up short as any sort of explanation or justification.

And keep in mind that we humans are expressions of the same forces that have created and sustains existence as we know it. What we think and do isn't just some accidental fluke, but is the result of possibilities that trace their origins back to that same mystery source as evinced by points one and two. And again, this is completely in keeping with the concept of God as it's generally held.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 12:48:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 10:45:26 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/10/2013 10:36:02 AM, PureX wrote:
For me, there are three ideas that stand as support of the existence of God.

One is the fact that existence is ordered. The energy that is being expressed as the universe is not being expressed as pure chaos. There are limits within the expressed chaos that enable order to occur. And it's through the relationship between chaos and order that the universe exists as it does. This simple and unavoidable fact forces us to consider the origin of those limitations, from which order has sprung. It doesn't prove that God exists, but it certainly invites the mind to contemplate this mysterious creative source, and the possibility of some purpose to existence (as order implies purpose).

The second is the phenomena of gestalt. Gestalt is a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements that, when unified as a whole, its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. The configuration results in a phenomena that far surpasses the possibilities inherent in the sum of the parts being configured. As an example: matter from energy, life from matter, and consciousness from living matter. Each opens up a whole new realm of existential possibilities that were not previously enabled and were not endemic to the elements involved. Gestalt shows us that the possibilities inherent within existence transcend our comprehension of it. And thus throws the door wide open to the very real possibility of God.

And the third bit of strong evidence for the existence of God is experiential. We humans need for God to exist, and that need is being fulfilled. It is built into our nature as human beings to seek the source and purpose of our own being. And we acquired our nature through our place within the nature of the universe as a whole. In a very real way, the universe is contemplating it's own existence, through us. And all of existence is then seeking God.

Atheists like to use the "God of the gaps" argument against theism, but they completely overlook the significance of their own observations, which is that the gap exists! The gap is there, and is real, and is within us all, even the atheists, themselves. It is that gap that us to need and to seek after God in the first place. And that gap, that need, is there as an expression of the whole universe, as we are manifestations of the universe expressing itself.

I've heard the atheist's arguments against these evidences, but have found that they just don't hold their water.

What say you?

I say the first two do nothing more than establish god as a possibility, which isn't "support" or "arguments in favor of" and the last doesn't even establish god as a possibility. Humans have a "need" or tendency toward a lot of things. I'll fully admit that we are predisposed toward superstitious beliefs (of which belief in gods a a type of); that doesn't validate them, it just means we're fundamentally irrational creatures.

And you apparently don't know what the "God of the gaps" means.

Atheism of the Gaps.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 12:50:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 12:48:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/10/2013 10:45:26 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/10/2013 10:36:02 AM, PureX wrote:
For me, there are three ideas that stand as support of the existence of God.

One is the fact that existence is ordered. The energy that is being expressed as the universe is not being expressed as pure chaos. There are limits within the expressed chaos that enable order to occur. And it's through the relationship between chaos and order that the universe exists as it does. This simple and unavoidable fact forces us to consider the origin of those limitations, from which order has sprung. It doesn't prove that God exists, but it certainly invites the mind to contemplate this mysterious creative source, and the possibility of some purpose to existence (as order implies purpose).

The second is the phenomena of gestalt. Gestalt is a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements that, when unified as a whole, its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. The configuration results in a phenomena that far surpasses the possibilities inherent in the sum of the parts being configured. As an example: matter from energy, life from matter, and consciousness from living matter. Each opens up a whole new realm of existential possibilities that were not previously enabled and were not endemic to the elements involved. Gestalt shows us that the possibilities inherent within existence transcend our comprehension of it. And thus throws the door wide open to the very real possibility of God.

And the third bit of strong evidence for the existence of God is experiential. We humans need for God to exist, and that need is being fulfilled. It is built into our nature as human beings to seek the source and purpose of our own being. And we acquired our nature through our place within the nature of the universe as a whole. In a very real way, the universe is contemplating it's own existence, through us. And all of existence is then seeking God.

Atheists like to use the "God of the gaps" argument against theism, but they completely overlook the significance of their own observations, which is that the gap exists! The gap is there, and is real, and is within us all, even the atheists, themselves. It is that gap that us to need and to seek after God in the first place. And that gap, that need, is there as an expression of the whole universe, as we are manifestations of the universe expressing itself.

I've heard the atheist's arguments against these evidences, but have found that they just don't hold their water.

What say you?

I say the first two do nothing more than establish god as a possibility, which isn't "support" or "arguments in favor of" and the last doesn't even establish god as a possibility. Humans have a "need" or tendency toward a lot of things. I'll fully admit that we are predisposed toward superstitious beliefs (of which belief in gods a a type of); that doesn't validate them, it just means we're fundamentally irrational creatures.

And you apparently don't know what the "God of the gaps" means.

Atheism of the Gaps.

The science/scientists of the gaps.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 2:10:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 12:41:07 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/10/2013 10:45:26 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/10/2013 10:36:02 AM, PureX wrote:
For me, there are three ideas that stand as support of the existence of God.

One is the fact that existence is ordered. The energy that is being expressed as the universe is not being expressed as pure chaos. There are limits within the expressed chaos that enable order to occur. And it's through the relationship between chaos and order that the universe exists as it does. This simple and unavoidable fact forces us to consider the origin of those limitations, from which order has sprung. It doesn't prove that God exists, but it certainly invites the mind to contemplate this mysterious creative source, and the possibility of some purpose to existence (as order implies purpose).

The second is the phenomena of gestalt. Gestalt is a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements that, when unified as a whole, its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. The configuration results in a phenomena that far surpasses the possibilities inherent in the sum of the parts being configured. As an example: matter from energy, life from matter, and consciousness from living matter. Each opens up a whole new realm of existential possibilities that were not previously enabled and were not endemic to the elements involved. Gestalt shows us that the possibilities inherent within existence transcend our comprehension of it. And thus throws the door wide open to the very real possibility of God.

And the third bit of strong evidence for the existence of God is experiential. We humans need for God to exist, and that need is being fulfilled. It is built into our nature as human beings to seek the source and purpose of our own being. And we acquired our nature through our place within the nature of the universe as a whole. In a very real way, the universe is contemplating it's own existence, through us. And all of existence is then seeking God.

Atheists like to use the "God of the gaps" argument against theism, but they completely overlook the significance of their own observations, which is that the gap exists! The gap is there, and is real, and is within us all, even the atheists, themselves. It is that gap that us to need and to seek after God in the first place. And that gap, that need, is there as an expression of the whole universe, as we are manifestations of the universe expressing itself.

I've heard the atheist's arguments against these evidences, but have found that they just don't hold their water.

What say you?

I say the first two do nothing more than establish god as a possibility, which isn't "support" or "arguments in favor of"...

The first supports the proposition that there is some external organizing force to existence as we know it. And the second exemplifies that assertion with examples from within existence as we know it. You can argue that neither of these define that source/force, but few definitions of God propose or require such special definition.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm noting that they aren't "support" or "arguments in favor of" a god.


... and the last doesn't even establish god as a possibility. Humans have a "need" or tendency toward a lot of things. I'll fully admit that we are predisposed toward superstitious beliefs (of which belief in gods a a type of); that doesn't validate them, it just means we're fundamentally irrational creatures.

But you are excusing the phenomena in advance of any explanation. First, this is not an insignificant need; it has been a driving force within humanity from as far back as we can investigate. And that drive is so strong in us that it has often driven us to kill ourselves and each other.

The significance of the force does not make it any less rational.

Yet there seems to be no real evolutionary advantage to it that would explain it's power and duration as a human characteristic. Excusing it as silly superstition may work well for your argument, but it sure comes up short as any sort of explanation or justification.

Not really. At our core, our are biological pattern recognition machines. Any complex pattern recognition machines is subject to false positives and false negatives. From an evolutionary stand point, it is better to have false positives (recognizing something that isn't really there) than it is to have false negatives (not recognizing something that is there). As a fundamental aspect of pattern recognition machines, guarding against one type of error makes you more prone to the other (eliminating false positives requires a stricter "acceptance" mechanisms, which increases the false negative/rejection rate, and vice versa).

So, as creatures with a vested interest in recognizing danger, mates, food, it is better to think you see danger, mates, food and be wrong, than to be exposed to danger, mates, food and not recognize it.

From this standpoint, we are hard wired to recognize things that aren't there, and this is, essentially, what superstitions (such as god-beliefs) are: pareidolia and apophenia.


And keep in mind that we humans are expressions of the same forces that have created and sustains existence as we know it. What we think and do isn't just some accidental fluke, but is the result of possibilities that trace their origins back to that same mystery source as evinced by points one and two. And again, this is completely in keeping with the concept of God as it's generally held.

You keep asserting consistency as proof. Why?
PureX
Posts: 1,515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 3:07:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 2:10:24 PM, drafterman wrote:

At our core, our are biological pattern recognition machines. Any complex pattern recognition machines is subject to false positives and false negatives. From an evolutionary stand point, it is better to have false positives (recognizing something that isn't really there) than it is to have false negatives (not recognizing something that is there). As a fundamental aspect of pattern recognition machines, guarding against one type of error makes you more prone to the other (eliminating false positives requires a stricter "acceptance" mechanisms, which increases the false negative/rejection rate, and vice versa).

So, as creatures with a vested interest in recognizing danger, mates, food, it is better to think you see danger, mates, food and be wrong, than to be exposed to danger, mates, food and not recognize it.

From this standpoint, we are hard wired to recognize things that aren't there, and this is, essentially, what superstitions (such as god-beliefs) are: pareidolia and apophenia.

I don't think your characterization is accurate. We humans cognate by comparing and contrasting incoming information with information that we hold in our memory, and then evaluate and respond to it relative to our needs and wants. And as biological creatures, most of our wants are directly related to our biological needs, with the exception of intellectually abstracted wants like love, fun, beauty, and God. Yet it's these intellectually abstracted desires that seem to drive our lives, and that very often overrule even our need to survive.

So that the more intelligent a life form becomes, the more credence they put in these abstract desires. Which kind of flies in the face of your claim that it's just some quirky anomaly of nature. In fact, it appears that nature is driving toward these desires, through us, rather than being oblivious of them, and of itself, as you suggest.


And keep in mind that we humans are expressions of the same forces that have created and sustains existence as we know it. What we think and do isn't just some accidental fluke, but is the result of possibilities that trace their origins back to that same mystery source as evinced by points one and two. And again, this is completely in keeping with the concept of God as it's generally held.

You keep asserting consistency as proof. Why?

There is no proof. But there IS supporting evidence, and reason. There IS a great mystery. And we ARE clearly being called to it. And there IS direct evidence of reality as we know it being able to "transcend itself" via the phenomena of gestalt. And these are all observation that fit very easily in almost any definition of God.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 4:10:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 3:07:11 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/10/2013 2:10:24 PM, drafterman wrote:

At our core, our are biological pattern recognition machines. Any complex pattern recognition machines is subject to false positives and false negatives. From an evolutionary stand point, it is better to have false positives (recognizing something that isn't really there) than it is to have false negatives (not recognizing something that is there). As a fundamental aspect of pattern recognition machines, guarding against one type of error makes you more prone to the other (eliminating false positives requires a stricter "acceptance" mechanisms, which increases the false negative/rejection rate, and vice versa).

So, as creatures with a vested interest in recognizing danger, mates, food, it is better to think you see danger, mates, food and be wrong, than to be exposed to danger, mates, food and not recognize it.

From this standpoint, we are hard wired to recognize things that aren't there, and this is, essentially, what superstitions (such as god-beliefs) are: pareidolia and apophenia.

I don't think your characterization is accurate. We humans cognate by comparing and contrasting incoming information with information that we hold in our memory, and then evaluate and respond to it relative to our needs and wants.

In other words: pattern recognition.

And as biological creatures, most of our wants are directly related to our biological needs, with the exception of intellectually abstracted wants like love, fun, beauty, and God. Yet it's these intellectually abstracted desires that seem to drive our lives, and that very often overrule even our need to survive.

I don't draw the same exception that you do. Regardless, I don't see why the functionality of the brain that processes external stimuli would operate differently between stimuli "directly related to our biological needs" and "intellectually abstracted wants." It's all stimulus/response.


So that the more intelligent a life form becomes, the more credence they put in these abstract desires. Which kind of flies in the face of your claim that it's just some quirky anomaly of nature. In fact, it appears that nature is driving toward these desires, through us, rather than being oblivious of them, and of itself, as you suggest.

Again, I don't see why it's an exception, so it's not contradictory at all. Furthermore, evolutionarily speaking, the more sophisticated parts of our brain are built (and depend) upon the older, less sophisticated parts that evolved first. We've become more intelligent but that is in addition to, not in place of, our evolved brain. As it is, we are not any different from our Stone Age ancestors.



And keep in mind that we humans are expressions of the same forces that have created and sustains existence as we know it. What we think and do isn't just some accidental fluke, but is the result of possibilities that trace their origins back to that same mystery source as evinced by points one and two. And again, this is completely in keeping with the concept of God as it's generally held.

You keep asserting consistency as proof. Why?

There is no proof. But there IS supporting evidence, and reason.

Not in anything you've presented.

There IS a great mystery. And we ARE clearly being called to it. And there IS direct evidence of reality as we know it being able to "transcend itself" via the phenomena of gestalt. And these are all observation that fit very easily in almost any definition of God.

Which does not "support" and is not an "argument in favor of" said god.