Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Favourite argument for the existence of God?

Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 5:32:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are a fair few arguments for the existence of God, each with varying effectiveness. I'm curious as to which is most favoured by people here on DDO.
If you aren't aware of them, I'll go over them quickly.

Teleological (design) argument: the complexity and ordered nature of the universe insinuates that it was designed and created, this creator is God. A strength of this argument is that it is intuitively appealing, although it is sometimes doubted that we can say that the universe is complex, because we have nothing to compare it to.

Cosomological argument: it is widely held that the universe had a beginning, and as something cannot create itself the universe must have required a being that is outside the universe to create it. This is God. A strength is that this argument is strongly based on logic and science, however it does not, as a stand-alone argument, provide any evidence that this creator is the loving God of Abrahamic religions.

Ontological argument: we can conceive of a perfect being, so a perfect being exists at least in the mind, but can this conception of a perfect being mean that it exists in reality? A perfect being, by definition, is perfect in all positive qualities. Existence is a positive quality and so a perfect being must have perfect existence. In other words, a perfect being necessarily exists in all possible worlds. Therefore a perfect being exists in this world. This is God. A strength of this argument is that it is deductive and seemingly sound. Nonetheless, it seems suspiciously unsatisfying.

Moral argument: Reason shows there to be an objective morality, but an objective morality must have an objective source. God is the only candidate for this source so He must exist. A strength of this argument is that it is very simple to understand but it is debatable as to whether objective morality exists, and even then whether objective morality requires a source after all.

Argument from religious experience: Millions of people have had religious experiences and it seems disproportionately sceptical to deny the veracity of every single one. This heavily insinuates that there is some element of truth behind at least a few of these experiences, and so God exists. This argument is more intuitively appealing than most, although it is less grounded in hard logic.

There are a few more than these, feel free to bring them up in this thread. My personal favourites are the cosmological argument (as a physics student) and the argument from religious experience (due to it having intuitive appeal to myself).

What's yours? Also, do go ahead and discuss any of the above arguments in this thread.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 7:23:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 5:32:17 PM, Philocat wrote:
There are a fair few arguments for the existence of God, each with varying effectiveness. I'm curious as to which is most favoured by people here on DDO.
If you aren't aware of them, I'll go over them quickly.

Teleological (design) argument: the complexity and ordered nature of the universe insinuates that it was designed and created, this creator is God. A strength of this argument is that it is intuitively appealing, although it is sometimes doubted that we can say that the universe is complex, because we have nothing to compare it to.

Cosomological argument: it is widely held that the universe had a beginning, and as something cannot create itself the universe must have required a being that is outside the universe to create it. This is God. A strength is that this argument is strongly based on logic and science, however it does not, as a stand-alone argument, provide any evidence that this creator is the loving God of Abrahamic religions.

Ontological argument: we can conceive of a perfect being, so a perfect being exists at least in the mind, but can this conception of a perfect being mean that it exists in reality? A perfect being, by definition, is perfect in all positive qualities. Existence is a positive quality and so a perfect being must have perfect existence. In other words, a perfect being necessarily exists in all possible worlds. Therefore a perfect being exists in this world. This is God. A strength of this argument is that it is deductive and seemingly sound. Nonetheless, it seems suspiciously unsatisfying.

Moral argument: Reason shows there to be an objective morality, but an objective morality must have an objective source. God is the only candidate for this source so He must exist. A strength of this argument is that it is very simple to understand but it is debatable as to whether objective morality exists, and even then whether objective morality requires a source after all.

Argument from religious experience: Millions of people have had religious experiences and it seems disproportionately sceptical to deny the veracity of every single one. This heavily insinuates that there is some element of truth behind at least a few of these experiences, and so God exists. This argument is more intuitively appealing than most, although it is less grounded in hard logic.

There are a few more than these, feel free to bring them up in this thread. My personal favourites are the cosmological argument (as a physics student) and the argument from religious experience (due to it having intuitive appeal to myself).

What's yours? Also, do go ahead and discuss any of the above arguments in this thread.

The concept called God obviously exists. The invisible supernatural character cannot exist. If he did we would need to embrace and accept all the supernatural mythical gods in history as existing because they are just as feasible as each other. Logic and common sense convinces us that all invisible supernatural characters are mythical.
Those who want to keep just one of them to believe in are fooling themselves. They are as gullible as a child who refuses to give up a favorite fairy tale character. They are not using logic or common sense in their thinking.

Since your personal favorites are the cosmological argument, and the intuitive one, let's look at those.

I agree it is a widely held BELIEF by both science and religion that the universe had a beginning. It is also a widely held BELIEF that something cannot create itself.

If those beliefs are true and correct then everything in existence must have had a beginning. However, there is one thing in scientific belief which has no beginning or end. Apparently Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If that is true Energy has no beginning or end. Energy is also not a "Being" in the sense of being an intelligent person. It is however a "being" if you define a "being" as "that which exists" which refers to existence itself.

Why must the universe have required a "being"( referring to an intelligent person) that is outside the universe to create it if it is simply ENERGY ( that which exists) which is manifesting itself in billions of different forms ?

Is it not possible that "that which exists" and has always existed is called Energy by science and called God by religions?

Is it possible that "God" is merely a personification of the Energy which has always existed and of itself has no beginning or end?

If everything is indeed made of "energy" which has always existed then theoretically all of us have always existed and will always exist. Any beginning or end would therefore be nothing but an illusion which deceives human perception and leads us all astray.

Any argument from religious experience is based on human emotion. We all know emotions are very subjective and fickle and we can deceive ourselves with our own minds. Humans experience all kinds of things in their minds including visions of aliens and believing they have been abducted by them. The experiences are real experiences, the imaginations are real imaginations but are our human interpretations of what we experience and observe in our own minds correct? Has someone really been abducted by an alien when they believe they have? Should we conclude aliens exist because of humans testimony and experience just because we have no other explanation for the phenomena of human delusions and have no clue what causes them all?

The human mind contains many imaginations which can cause people to deceive themselves and get totally lost in their own imaginations. That is why it is necessary to do all we can to understand the difference between fantasy and reality in any areas of life. Even scientists can get lost in chasing science fiction and truly believe it is some kind of reality.

Now back to the concept of Energy not being created or destroyed. If that is true then all things that exist today have always existed and are simply a manifestation of the eternal energy. None of them can be created or destroyed but they simply change form from invisible to visible and back to invisible. That would create an eternal illusion which will most likely fool humans for all eternity because they are always trying to find a beginning and end to something which ultimately has no beginning or end.
My Conclusion... Energy and God must simply be different words which describe the same thing. ie, that which has always existed and has no beginning or end.
All that exists is energy. All that exists is God. We must all be part of that Energy/God which is eternal.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 12:51:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 7:23:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:32:17 PM, Philocat wrote:
There are a fair few arguments for the existence of God, each with varying effectiveness. I'm curious as to which is most favoured by people here on DDO.

What's yours? Also, do go ahead and discuss any of the above arguments in this thread.

The concept called God obviously exists. The invisible supernatural character cannot exist. If he did we would need to embrace and accept all the supernatural mythical gods in history as existing because they are just as feasible as each other. Logic and common sense convinces us that all invisible supernatural characters are mythical.
Those who want to keep just one of them to believe in are fooling themselves. They are as gullible as a child who refuses to give up a favorite fairy tale character. They are not using logic or common sense in their thinking.

Not necessarily, you are making the mistake of thinking all the different perceptions of gods are distinct, mutually exclusive perceptions. I would argue that each god is merely a different perception of the same God.
Besides, my arguments clearly argue for an omnipotent God, they cannot be used to argue for other supernatural beings.


Since your personal favorites are the cosmological argument, and the intuitive one, let's look at those.

I agree it is a widely held BELIEF by both science and religion that the universe had a beginning. It is also a widely held BELIEF that something cannot create itself.

If those beliefs are true and correct then everything in existence must have had a beginning. However, there is one thing in scientific belief which has no beginning or end. Apparently Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If that is true Energy has no beginning or end. Energy is also not a "Being" in the sense of being an intelligent person. It is however a "being" if you define a "being" as "that which exists" which refers to existence itself.

Why must the universe have required a "being"( referring to an intelligent person) that is outside the universe to create it if it is simply ENERGY ( that which exists) which is manifesting itself in billions of different forms ?

The conservation of mass-energy is a verified physical law, I agree, but physical laws can only be used to make sense of the empirical, physical world and have no relevance outside or prior to the universe. In other words, the conservation of mass-energy does not refute the possibility of the universe being created because it is only applicable inside the universe.


Is it not possible that "that which exists" and has always existed is called Energy by science and called God by religions?

Is it possible that "God" is merely a personification of the Energy which has always existed and of itself has no beginning or end?

Possibly, you seem to advocate a form of pantheism. Although I would argue that energy has not always existed because the laws of physics break down at singularity (the big bang) so we have no evidence that energy is non-contingent.

If everything is indeed made of "energy" which has always existed then theoretically all of us have always existed and will always exist. Any beginning or end would therefore be nothing but an illusion which deceives human perception and leads us all astray.

Again, this rides on the assumption that energy has always existed.


Any argument from religious experience is based on human emotion. We all know emotions are very subjective and fickle and we can deceive ourselves with our own minds. Humans experience all kinds of things in their minds including visions of aliens and believing they have been abducted by them. The experiences are real experiences, the imaginations are real imaginations but are our human interpretations of what we experience and observe in our own minds correct? Has someone really been abducted by an alien when they believe they have? Should we conclude aliens exist because of humans testimony and experience just because we have no other explanation for the phenomena of human delusions and have no clue what causes them all?

Religious experiences are much more common than experiences of aliens. Besides, experiences of aliens would not prove that they exist, but they would at least add to the probability that they exist. In a similar way, religious experiences cannot prove that God exists but the sheer number of them makes it more probable that their source is what they say it is.

The human mind contains many imaginations which can cause people to deceive themselves and get totally lost in their own imaginations. That is why it is necessary to do all we can to understand the difference between fantasy and reality in any areas of life. Even scientists can get lost in chasing science fiction and truly believe it is some kind of reality.
I agree, but again I think it is overly sceptical to put every single religious experience down to imagination.

Now back to the concept of Energy not being created or destroyed. If that is true then all things that exist today have always existed and are simply a manifestation of the eternal energy. None of them can be created or destroyed but they simply change form from invisible to visible and back to invisible. That would create an eternal illusion which will most likely fool humans for all eternity because they are always trying to find a beginning and end to something which ultimately has no beginning or end.
My Conclusion... Energy and God must simply be different words which describe the same thing. ie, that which has always existed and has no beginning or end.
All that exists is energy. All that exists is God. We must all be part of that Energy/God which is eternal.

You make an interesting point, although I think you make the error of extrapolating laws of physics outside the realm of physical space, where they have no proven veracity. The laws of physics are only referring to that which is within the universe, not what is outside or preceding.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 1:34:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Cosmological Argument is the best argument for the existence of God. The other arguments are supplemental and flawed proofs. Just because they are flawed does not mean they are not evidence of some kind, however. The Cosmological Argument is not perfect, but is pretty good. It offers a better explanation than that a finite universe is self-creating. For me personally, it is more compelling than the atheist argument. Obviously, all sorts of explanations could be possible, as the creation of an universe has not been observed. We think we can believe things by logically regress from the observation of natural laws and the current configuration of the universe. This is how we arrived at the big bang. Retrodiction should be possible for pre-big bang events as well. However, retrodiction of pre-big bang events is very inexact.

The CA is enough to justify a reasonable belief in God. The atheist argument may also be good enough to justify belief that there is no God. Belief and knowledge are not coequals.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 1:42:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 1:34:02 PM, tabularasa wrote:
The Cosmological Argument is the best argument for the existence of God... It offers a better explanation than that a finite universe is self-creating.

I didn't know "God did it" was an explanation.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 2:15:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 1:42:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/21/2014 1:34:02 PM, tabularasa wrote:
The Cosmological Argument is the best argument for the existence of God... It offers a better explanation than that a finite universe is self-creating.

I didn't know "God did it" was an explanation.

No, but the cosmological argument is.
If you think that the CA is simply saying 'God did it' with no explanation then you need to go and do your research.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 3:06:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 1:42:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/21/2014 1:34:02 PM, tabularasa wrote:
The Cosmological Argument is the best argument for the existence of God... It offers a better explanation than that a finite universe is self-creating.

I didn't know "God did it" was an explanation.

I think that you can find a definition of explanation that satisfies this usage. You may be able to find a definition that does not satisfy this usage. If you like, you could debate the meaning of every single word in this argument or any other argument. I try to be precise, but I also use words based on their plain meaning. If you believe that you have a serious argument which undermines my statement, go ahead and make it. I think that the meaning of my statement is clear. I also believe that you know precisely what it means.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 3:27:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 5:32:17 PM, Philocat wrote:
There are a fair few arguments for the existence of God, each with varying effectiveness. I'm curious as to which is most favoured by people here on DDO.
If you aren't aware of them, I'll go over them quickly.

Teleological (design) argument: the complexity and ordered nature of the universe insinuates that it was designed and created, this creator is God. A strength of this argument is that it is intuitively appealing, although it is sometimes doubted that we can say that the universe is complex, because we have nothing to compare it to.

Cosomological argument: it is widely held that the universe had a beginning, and as something cannot create itself the universe must have required a being that is outside the universe to create it. This is God. A strength is that this argument is strongly based on logic and science, however it does not, as a stand-alone argument, provide any evidence that this creator is the loving God of Abrahamic religions.

Ontological argument: we can conceive of a perfect being, so a perfect being exists at least in the mind, but can this conception of a perfect being mean that it exists in reality? A perfect being, by definition, is perfect in all positive qualities. Existence is a positive quality and so a perfect being must have perfect existence. In other words, a perfect being necessarily exists in all possible worlds. Therefore a perfect being exists in this world. This is God. A strength of this argument is that it is deductive and seemingly sound. Nonetheless, it seems suspiciously unsatisfying.

Moral argument: Reason shows there to be an objective morality, but an objective morality must have an objective source. God is the only candidate for this source so He must exist. A strength of this argument is that it is very simple to understand but it is debatable as to whether objective morality exists, and even then whether objective morality requires a source after all.

Argument from religious experience: Millions of people have had religious experiences and it seems disproportionately sceptical to deny the veracity of every single one. This heavily insinuates that there is some element of truth behind at least a few of these experiences, and so God exists. This argument is more intuitively appealing than most, although it is less grounded in hard logic.

There are a few more than these, feel free to bring them up in this thread. My personal favourites are the cosmological argument (as a physics student) and the argument from religious experience (due to it having intuitive appeal to myself).

What's yours? Also, do go ahead and discuss any of the above arguments in this thread.

Argument from religious experience. It is the most ridiculous, but at the same time, it seems to be viewed a such a strong or important argument.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 3:48:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:51:40 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:23:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:32:17 PM, Philocat wrote:
There are a fair few arguments for the existence of God, each with varying effectiveness. I'm curious as to which is most favoured by people here on DDO.

What's yours? Also, do go ahead and discuss any of the above arguments in this thread.

The concept called God obviously exists. The invisible supernatural character cannot exist. If he did we would need to embrace and accept all the supernatural mythical gods in history as existing because they are just as feasible as each other. Logic and common sense convinces us that all invisible supernatural characters are mythical.
Those who want to keep just one of them to believe in are fooling themselves. They are as gullible as a child who refuses to give up a favorite fairy tale character. They are not using logic or common sense in their thinking.

Not necessarily, you are making the mistake of thinking all the different perceptions of gods are distinct, mutually exclusive perceptions. I would argue that each god is merely a different perception of the same God.
Besides, my arguments clearly argue for an omnipotent God, they cannot be used to argue for other supernatural beings.


If every god is merely a different perception of the same God, ultimately your omnipotent God is made up of the body of mythical gods which are all personifications of various aspects of life in general.
That makes the omnipotent God the ultimate corporate body of life in general. It does not mean the character exists any more than the mythical gods which are all members of the body of the ultimate God.
Your own logic will tell you invisible supernatural beings really don't exist any place except in human imagination. Gods are all mythical. If the ultimate God is made up of all the mythical gods then logically the ultimate God is just as mythical as the minor gods.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:10:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:51:40 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:23:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Since your personal favorites are the cosmological argument, and the intuitive one, let's look at those.

I agree it is a widely held BELIEF by both science and religion that the universe had a beginning. It is also a widely held BELIEF that something cannot create itself.

If those beliefs are true and correct then everything in existence must have had a beginning. However, there is one thing in scientific belief which has no beginning or end. Apparently Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If that is true Energy has no beginning or end. Energy is also not a "Being" in the sense of being an intelligent person. It is however a "being" if you define a "being" as "that which exists" which refers to existence itself.

Why must the universe have required a "being"( referring to an intelligent person) that is outside the universe to create it if it is simply ENERGY ( that which exists) which is manifesting itself in billions of different forms ?

The conservation of mass-energy is a verified physical law, I agree, but physical laws can only be used to make sense of the empirical, physical world and have no relevance outside or prior to the universe. In other words, the conservation of mass-energy does not refute the possibility of the universe being created because it is only applicable inside the universe.

IF the universe is made of physical energy which cannot be created or destroyed, it must have always existed. Therefore there can be no time "prior to the universe". IF the universe = energy which cannot be created or destroyed, it is just a manifestation of the energy which has always exited. If you believe the universe once did not exist you are basically implying energy once did not exist and was indeed created.
If that is true, what created that energy? Either all energy in existence has always existed or it was created. Which is it?

Is it not possible that "that which exists" and has always existed is called Energy by science and called God by religions?

Is it possible that "God" is merely a personification of the Energy which has always existed and of itself has no beginning or end?

Possibly, you seem to advocate a form of pantheism. Although I would argue that energy has not always existed because the laws of physics break down at singularity (the big bang) so we have no evidence that energy is non-contingent.


Are you arguing with the law of conservation of energy and claiming energy can indeed be created and destroyed? If it can, how is it created and destroyed?
Are you just arguing that energy just appeared by chance? It magicked itself into existence? Are you saying it can be created because you want to keep believing in an invisible supernatural creator who created the energy rather than understanding that "creator" is the energy which has always existed?

If everything is indeed made of "energy" which has always existed then theoretically all of us have always existed and will always exist. Any beginning or end would therefore be nothing but an illusion which deceives human perception and leads us all astray.

Again, this rides on the assumption that energy has always existed.

Science is what teaches the concept of energy always having existed. Do they base that on an assumption? Are scientific theories based on assumptions?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 4:45:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:51:40 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:23:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Any argument from religious experience is based on human emotion. We all know emotions are very subjective and fickle and we can deceive ourselves with our own minds. Humans experience all kinds of things in their minds including visions of aliens and believing they have been abducted by them. The experiences are real experiences, the imaginations are real imaginations but are our human interpretations of what we experience and observe in our own minds correct? Has someone really been abducted by an alien when they believe they have? Should we conclude aliens exist because of humans testimony and experience just because we have no other explanation for the phenomena of human delusions and have no clue what causes them all?

Religious experiences are much more common than experiences of aliens. Besides, experiences of aliens would not prove that they exist, but they would at least add to the probability that they exist. In a similar way, religious experiences cannot prove that God exists but the sheer number of them makes it more probable that their source is what they say it is.

Obviously experiences "of God" don't prove God exists. The number of human "experiences of God" does not even make it more probable that God exists. It only proves that humans have various experiences which they interpret subjectively through their own minds, preconceived ideas and beliefs in order to try to make sense of them. One describes their experience as being "from God" and so the rest follow suit like sheep because they don't know any other way to explain them and the explanation that "God told them" or "God revealed himself" to them is acceptable in religious circles. It makes them sound "spiritual" anyway and some believe "being spiritual" is a goal which all ought to try to attain.
Inner experiences of the mind and heart are what they are. They are natural actions and reactions of the body to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. No supernatural beings cause them any more than a person called "Mother Nature" causes natural phenomenon in nature or some supernatural "devil" forces evil people to kill others.

The human mind contains many imaginations which can cause people to deceive themselves and get totally lost in their own imaginations. That is why it is necessary to do all we can to understand the difference between fantasy and reality in any areas of life. Even scientists can get lost in chasing science fiction and truly believe it is some kind of reality.

I agree, but again I think it is overly sceptical to put every single religious experience down to imagination.

Skepticism is necessary if you don't want to be fooled by the illusions and delusions of life. I don't think anyone can be overly skeptical. Lowering ones guard can cause a person to "be shot". Life creates many illusions and delusions. The human mind and perception does not help since it is very easily fooled by illusions. That is why so many illusionists are successful entertainers. They keep people on their toes wondering how the tricks are created. To understand that our own minds play tricks on us keeps us questioning our own beliefs instead of allowing us to take anything for granted. It keeps us alert and makes it harder for people to deceive us.

Now back to the concept of Energy not being created or destroyed. If that is true then all things that exist today have always existed and are simply a manifestation of the eternal energy. None of them can be created or destroyed but they simply change form from invisible to visible and back to invisible. That would create an eternal illusion which will most likely fool humans for all eternity because they are always trying to find a beginning and end to something which ultimately has no beginning or end.
My Conclusion... Energy and God must simply be different words which describe the same thing. ie, that which has always existed and has no beginning or end.
All that exists is energy. All that exists is God. We must all be part of that Energy/God which is eternal.

You make an interesting point, although I think you make the error of extrapolating laws of physics outside the realm of physical space, where they have no proven veracity. The laws of physics are only referring to that which is within the universe, not what is outside or preceding.

If the laws of physics are correct and apply to all physical things which include physical space. The whole concept of "outside the realm of physical space" is illogical because space is infinite. There can be nothing outside infinity due to infinity having no physical boundaries. The same applies to energy. It has no boundaries so how can you even conceive of anything outside of it? You need a boundary to conceive of something outside a boundary.
Where is the boundary of space? Where does it begin and end? Where does the wind begin and end? Where does energy begin and end?
Humans create beginning and ends which are relative to whatever they are measuring. They create their own measurements which are really meaningless in the big scheme of things. Any human measurements are only relevant to human perception and nothing else.
Ask an ant to measure things and see what answers they come up with.
Ask a dog and find out how things appear from their perceptions.
The fact is human perception causes humans to believe that what they see is real rather than make us question whether we are being fooled by our own eyes, perceptions and preconceived ideas.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 5:12:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 3:06:08 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/21/2014 1:42:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/21/2014 1:34:02 PM, tabularasa wrote:
The Cosmological Argument is the best argument for the existence of God... It offers a better explanation than that a finite universe is self-creating.

I didn't know "God did it" was an explanation.

I think that you can find a definition of explanation that satisfies this usage. You may be able to find a definition that does not satisfy this usage. If you like, you could debate the meaning of every single word in this argument or any other argument. I try to be precise, but I also use words based on their plain meaning. If you believe that you have a serious argument which undermines my statement, go ahead and make it. I think that the meaning of my statement is clear. I also believe that you know precisely what it means.

I know what you meant, but the KCA doesn't offer what you seem to think. The idea that the cause of the universe is timeless, immaterial & transcendent is not an explanation. These terms are all negative attributes, so all this accomplishes is telling us what the cause is not. That's not how we go about explaining things.

The only other attribute that the KCA offers is that it is a disembodied mind, which is a complete non-sequitur. You can't assert something as the cause for something else until you can demonstrate that that something exists. And before you can demonstrate that this something exists you have to demonstrate that it is possible, which the KCA does not even touch.
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 5:15:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Prophecy Fulfilled . . .

Now, let's apply the 7X factor to the remaining 360 years of judgment against nation Israel in this remarkable mathematical prophecy . . .

360 Remaining years of judgment

x 7 The prophetic '7X' factor

= 2,520 Years of judgment remained against nation Israel

God gave the Jews the most sophisticated calendar on Earth. It is both a Lunar and a Solar calendar. The Jewish calendar uses a 360 day lunar (and prophetic) year and then adds a 'Leap Month' on specific years to accurately coincide with the Solar cycle we use on our 'Julian' calendar ...

The Bible uses 360 day years for prophecies and expects us to add the appropriate 'leap months' on schedule. So, the easiest way to unravel this prophecy is to first convert this prophecy into days ...

2,520 years

x 360 days

= 907,200 days of judgment remained against nation Israel after the Babylonian captivity

Now, convert the 907,200 days found in this prophecy into our 365.25 day solar years (the .25 adjusts for leap years) . . .

907,200 days " 365.25 days = 2,483.78 years of judgment remained against nation Israel

With this information, let's look at this remarkable prophecy again . . .

606 B.C Israel taken into Babylonian captivity

- 70 Years for 70 years

= 536 B.C. End of first 70 years of judgment

+ 2483 Years Now add the 2,483 years remaining in this judgment

+ 1 Year Add 1 year because there is no "0" B.C. or A.D.

= 1948 AD! End of judgment against nation Israel

Israel Back in Her Land as a Nation . . . in 1948!
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 6:03:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 5:12:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/21/2014 3:06:08 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/21/2014 1:42:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/21/2014 1:34:02 PM, tabularasa wrote:
The Cosmological Argument is the best argument for the existence of God... It offers a better explanation than that a finite universe is self-creating.

I didn't know "God did it" was an explanation.

I think that you can find a definition of explanation that satisfies this usage. You may be able to find a definition that does not satisfy this usage. If you like, you could debate the meaning of every single word in this argument or any other argument. I try to be precise, but I also use words based on their plain meaning. If you believe that you have a serious argument which undermines my statement, go ahead and make it. I think that the meaning of my statement is clear. I also believe that you know precisely what it means.

I know what you meant, but the KCA doesn't offer what you seem to think. The idea that the cause of the universe is timeless, immaterial & transcendent is not an explanation. These terms are all negative attributes, so all this accomplishes is telling us what the cause is not. That's not how we go about explaining things.

The only other attribute that the KCA offers is that it is a disembodied mind, which is a complete non-sequitur. You can't assert something as the cause for something else until you can demonstrate that that something exists. And before you can demonstrate that this something exists you have to demonstrate that it is possible, which the KCA does not even touch.

I like what you have to say about negative attributes. I believe this is an argument worth making and worth hearing. I am not sure that "transcendent" is a negative attribute in every sense, but it certainly may be construed that way. I believe that the CA says that there must be a sufficient, uncaused cause for all that exists. Some CA's use the terms you quote. I use a slightly different version. "Sufficient" and "uncaused cause" may be as far as the definition of God can go. Christianity uses a slightly different CA than a scientific theist would use. Christians would define God using some of the words you discounted as negative attributes, and perhaps quite a few more. Maybe some of these words can be inferred logically or are fallaciously inferred using logical jumps. The theist that argues from science, without using a narrow Christian metaphysical and semantical backdrop, perhaps should not use so many adjectives to define the uncaused cause. To use the Spinozan term, such a God would be equivalent to "infinite substance". God is not necessarily immaterial, He is made from the same stuff as the universe...or more properly, the universe is made of the same stuff as God. Timeless is an amorphous term, because no one understands the true nature of time. God is transcendent only in the sense that the physical universe to the theist would be a smaller physical subsystem within the greater system of the infinite substance of God. The universe would be predicated upon God's existence in this sense of the word "transcendent", such as the milky way galaxy is predicated upon the existence of the universe.

As for the disembodied mind comment: not even I am sure that this can be logically inferred.

I agree that you must demonstrate that something exists in order to demonstrate that it is a cause. And to demonstrate that something exists, it must first be demonstrated to be possible. I think that the CA demonstrates that it is possible. It does not demonstrate with 100% absolute certainty that God exists. The possibility of God's existence is as far as the argument goes. I cannot know that God exists. But, I am justified in believing it if I have good reason to think that the existence of God could be possible.

There are many things that you have said that I agree with. I think that one item of substance that you and I disagree on is the substance of the CA. I use a mixture of Kalam, classical, and Spinozan arguments for the existence of God. I must admit, no argument for God's existence is perfect. You could be right, I could be wrong...who knows. I believe that we both try to use reason to arrive at true beliefs. That we hold in common.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 6:30:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 3:48:02 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:51:40 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:23:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:32:17 PM, Philocat wrote:
There are a fair few arguments for the existence of God, each with varying effectiveness. I'm curious as to which is most favoured by people here on DDO.

What's yours? Also, do go ahead and discuss any of the above arguments in this thread.

The concept called God obviously exists. The invisible supernatural character cannot exist. If he did we would need to embrace and accept all the supernatural mythical gods in history as existing because they are just as feasible as each other. Logic and common sense convinces us that all invisible supernatural characters are mythical.
Those who want to keep just one of them to believe in are fooling themselves. They are as gullible as a child who refuses to give up a favorite fairy tale character. They are not using logic or common sense in their thinking.

Not necessarily, you are making the mistake of thinking all the different perceptions of gods are distinct, mutually exclusive perceptions. I would argue that each god is merely a different perception of the same God.
Besides, my arguments clearly argue for an omnipotent God, they cannot be used to argue for other supernatural beings.


If every god is merely a different perception of the same God, ultimately your omnipotent God is made up of the body of mythical gods which are all personifications of various aspects of life in general.
That makes the omnipotent God the ultimate corporate body of life in general. It does not mean the character exists any more than the mythical gods which are all members of the body of the ultimate God.
Your own logic will tell you invisible supernatural beings really don't exist any place except in human imagination. Gods are all mythical. If the ultimate God is made up of all the mythical gods then logically the ultimate God is just as mythical as the minor gods.

No, I do not argue that the 'minor gods' are mythical in the sense of non-existence, but mythical in the sense that all the characteristics attributed to them are based on the false assumptions that they are 100% veridical.
Ultimately, my arguments only assert the existence of an omnipotent God, not any other 'minor god'.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 6:37:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:10:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:51:40 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:23:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Since your personal favorites are the cosmological argument, and the intuitive one, let's look at those.

I agree it is a widely held BELIEF by both science and religion that the universe had a beginning. It is also a widely held BELIEF that something cannot create itself.

If those beliefs are true and correct then everything in existence must have had a beginning. However, there is one thing in scientific belief which has no beginning or end. Apparently Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If that is true Energy has no beginning or end. Energy is also not a "Being" in the sense of being an intelligent person. It is however a "being" if you define a "being" as "that which exists" which refers to existence itself.

Why must the universe have required a "being"( referring to an intelligent person) that is outside the universe to create it if it is simply ENERGY ( that which exists) which is manifesting itself in billions of different forms ?

The conservation of mass-energy is a verified physical law, I agree, but physical laws can only be used to make sense of the empirical, physical world and have no relevance outside or prior to the universe. In other words, the conservation of mass-energy does not refute the possibility of the universe being created because it is only applicable inside the universe.

IF the universe is made of physical energy which cannot be created or destroyed, it must have always existed. Therefore there can be no time "prior to the universe". IF the universe = energy which cannot be created or destroyed, it is just a manifestation of the energy which has always exited. If you believe the universe once did not exist you are basically implying energy once did not exist and was indeed created.
If that is true, what created that energy? Either all energy in existence has always existed or it was created. Which is it?
Yes, I am implying that energy did not exist at some point and was therefore created. This is because the Big Bang implies a beginning of existing matter. Thus it is not unreasonable to suggest that energy came into existence.


Is it not possible that "that which exists" and has always existed is called Energy by science and called God by religions?

Is it possible that "God" is merely a personification of the Energy which has always existed and of itself has no beginning or end?

Possibly, you seem to advocate a form of pantheism. Although I would argue that energy has not always existed because the laws of physics break down at singularity (the big bang) so we have no evidence that energy is non-contingent.


Are you arguing with the law of conservation of energy and claiming energy can indeed be created and destroyed? If it can, how is it created and destroyed?
Are you just arguing that energy just appeared by chance? It magicked itself into existence? Are you saying it can be created because you want to keep believing in an invisible supernatural creator who created the energy rather than understanding that "creator" is the energy which has always existed?

No of course I am not saying it appeared by chance. If anything that is what most atheists say. I am saying that energy was created by God.

If energy is the creator, who created the energy?


If everything is indeed made of "energy" which has always existed then theoretically all of us have always existed and will always exist. Any beginning or end would therefore be nothing but an illusion which deceives human perception and leads us all astray.

Again, this rides on the assumption that energy has always existed.

Science is what teaches the concept of energy always having existed. Do they base that on an assumption? Are scientific theories based on assumptions?

It is an assumption to assume that scientific laws apply to events prior to the universe or even its very early history. Stephen Hawking maintained that physical laws break down at a singularity (the Big Bang).
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 6:39:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 5:32:17 PM, Philocat wrote:
There are a fair few arguments for the existence of God, each with varying effectiveness. I'm curious as to which is most favoured by people here on DDO.
If you aren't aware of them, I'll go over them quickly.

Teleological (design) argument: the complexity and ordered nature of the universe insinuates that it was designed and created, this creator is God. A strength of this argument is that it is intuitively appealing, although it is sometimes doubted that we can say that the universe is complex, because we have nothing to compare it to.

Cosomological argument: it is widely held that the universe had a beginning, and as something cannot create itself the universe must have required a being that is outside the universe to create it. This is God. A strength is that this argument is strongly based on logic and science, however it does not, as a stand-alone argument, provide any evidence that this creator is the loving God of Abrahamic religions.

Ontological argument: we can conceive of a perfect being, so a perfect being exists at least in the mind, but can this conception of a perfect being mean that it exists in reality? A perfect being, by definition, is perfect in all positive qualities. Existence is a positive quality and so a perfect being must have perfect existence. In other words, a perfect being necessarily exists in all possible worlds. Therefore a perfect being exists in this world. This is God. A strength of this argument is that it is deductive and seemingly sound. Nonetheless, it seems suspiciously unsatisfying.

Moral argument: Reason shows there to be an objective morality, but an objective morality must have an objective source. God is the only candidate for this source so He must exist. A strength of this argument is that it is very simple to understand but it is debatable as to whether objective morality exists, and even then whether objective morality requires a source after all.

Argument from religious experience: Millions of people have had religious experiences and it seems disproportionately sceptical to deny the veracity of every single one. This heavily insinuates that there is some element of truth behind at least a few of these experiences, and so God exists. This argument is more intuitively appealing than most, although it is less grounded in hard logic.

There are a few more than these, feel free to bring them up in this thread. My personal favourites are the cosmological argument (as a physics student) and the argument from religious experience (due to it having intuitive appeal to myself).

What's yours? Also, do go ahead and discuss any of the above arguments in this thread.

Actually all of the above rasons and more are, and to velid have to be, based on evidence, as a foundation at least.

My reason is simply that he exists and teh evidence all points to that simple fact, wheter or not peopel choose to acknowledge the evidecne for what it is.

Believing in a creator, to a logical mind anyway, means believing that he must want better for hsi creation than currently exists, and the Bible revease exactly what he intended, why it got diverted, and how it will be brought back on track, inevitably.

In fact the Bible, truthfully, answers all teh questions we need answers to. Maybe not all we would want or like, but all we need.

It revelas the triumphs and siasters of teh Plan in hnest detail, also showingf exactly what went wrong and why.

Howevr it also reveals the eventual success of teh plan despite all teh opposition to it can thrown in teh mix, ad shows those of us who read it with open minds and eyes roughly where we are in the stream of time. Uncomfortably close to teh enxt step.

Uncomfortably?

Yes for teh majority of humanity terminally so, and even teh faithful will lose loved ones and ones they trsutede, and will lose them forever.

No-one looks forward to the tribulation or to Armageddon. However many of us look forward to the day after, when we can start work on making sense of creation again.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 6:52:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like the cosmological argument because it brings up some really interesting philosophical questions about actual infinites and cause-and-effect.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 6:56:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 4:45:56 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:51:40 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:23:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Any argument from religious experience is based on human emotion. We all know emotions are very subjective and fickle and we can deceive ourselves with our own minds. Humans experience all kinds of things in their minds including visions of aliens and believing they have been abducted by them. The experiences are real experiences, the imaginations are real imaginations but are our human interpretations of what we experience and observe in our own minds correct? Has someone really been abducted by an alien when they believe they have? Should we conclude aliens exist because of humans testimony and experience just because we have no other explanation for the phenomena of human delusions and have no clue what causes them all?

Religious experiences are much more common than experiences of aliens. Besides, experiences of aliens would not prove that they exist, but they would at least add to the probability that they exist. In a similar way, religious experiences cannot prove that God exists but the sheer number of them makes it more probable that their source is what they say it is.

Obviously experiences "of God" don't prove God exists. The number of human "experiences of God" does not even make it more probable that God exists. It only proves that humans have various experiences which they interpret subjectively through their own minds, preconceived ideas and beliefs in order to try to make sense of them. One describes their experience as being "from God" and so the rest follow suit like sheep because they don't know any other way to explain them and the explanation that "God told them" or "God revealed himself" to them is acceptable in religious circles. It makes them sound "spiritual" anyway and some believe "being spiritual" is a goal which all ought to try to attain.

The thing is, religious experiences are not casual things that people simply make up to sound spiritual. Religious experiences are life-changing and profound events.
Furthermore, your explanation would not account for all the religious experiences of atheists.

Inner experiences of the mind and heart are what they are. They are natural actions and reactions of the body to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. No supernatural beings cause them any more than a person called "Mother Nature" causes natural phenomenon in nature or some supernatural "devil" forces evil people to kill others.


This is a poor analogy, natural phenomena exist with or without the existence of 'Mother Nature' and evil is committed with or without the existence of the devil. These are everyday actions that can be explained easily using science. In contrast, science cannot explain why the vast majority of religious experiences happen.

The human mind contains many imaginations which can cause people to deceive themselves and get totally lost in their own imaginations. That is why it is necessary to do all we can to understand the difference between fantasy and reality in any areas of life. Even scientists can get lost in chasing science fiction and truly believe it is some kind of reality.

I agree, but again I think it is overly sceptical to put every single religious experience down to imagination.

Skepticism is necessary if you don't want to be fooled by the illusions and delusions of life. I don't think anyone can be overly skeptical. Lowering ones guard can cause a person to "be shot". Life creates many illusions and delusions. The human mind and perception does not help since it is very easily fooled by illusions. That is why so many illusionists are successful entertainers. They keep people on their toes wondering how the tricks are created. To understand that our own minds play tricks on us keeps us questioning our own beliefs instead of allowing us to take anything for granted. It keeps us alert and makes it harder for people to deceive us.

With that logic, why should we take the empirical world seriously? If you say we ought to be overly sceptical then what justification do we have for trusting our sense experience?
You risk becoming trapped in, as Richard Swinburne put it, 'a sceptical bog'.
At the end of the day, if millions of people claim to have experienced X, then you must at least consider that X is probable.


Now back to the concept of Energy not being created or destroyed. If that is true then all things that exist today have always existed and are simply a manifestation of the eternal energy. None of them can be created or destroyed but they simply change form from invisible to visible and back to invisible. That would create an eternal illusion which will most likely fool humans for all eternity because they are always trying to find a beginning and end to something which ultimately has no beginning or end.
My Conclusion... Energy and God must simply be different words which describe the same thing. ie, that which has always existed and has no beginning or end.
All that exists is energy. All that exists is God. We must all be part of that Energy/God which is eternal.

You make an interesting point, although I think you make the error of extrapolating laws of physics outside the realm of physical space, where they have no proven veracity. The laws of physics are only referring to that which is within the universe, not what is outside or preceding.

If the laws of physics are correct and apply to all physical things which include physical space. The whole concept of "outside the realm of physical space" is illogical because space is infinite. There can be nothing outside infinity due to infinity having no physical boundaries. The same applies to energy. It has no boundaries so how can you even conceive of anything outside of it? You need a boundary to conceive of something outside a boundary.
Where is the boundary of space? Where does it begin and end? Where does the wind begin and end? Where does energy begin and end?
Humans create beginning and ends which are relative to whatever they are measuring. They create their own measurements which are really meaningless in the big scheme of things. Any human measurements are only relevant to human perception and nothing else.
Ask an ant to measure things and see what answers they come up with.
Ask a dog and find out how things appear from their perceptions.
The fact is human perception causes humans to believe that what they see is real rather than make us question whether we are being fooled by our own eyes, perceptions and preconceived ideas.

After the Big Bang the universe expanded (an increase in spatial dimensions), if there is nothing outside the universe then what did it expand into?
And if the universe is infinitely large then it would have to have been expanding for an infinite time, which it has not. Therefore the universe is not infinitely large.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 7:22:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 6:56:54 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:45:56 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:51:40 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:23:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Any argument from religious experience is based on human emotion. We all know emotions are very subjective and fickle and we can deceive ourselves with our own minds. Humans experience all kinds of things in their minds including visions of aliens and believing they have been abducted by them. The experiences are real experiences, the imaginations are real imaginations but are our human interpretations of what we experience and observe in our own minds correct? Has someone really been abducted by an alien when they believe they have? Should we conclude aliens exist because of humans testimony and experience just because we have no other explanation for the phenomena of human delusions and have no clue what causes them all?

Religious experiences are much more common than experiences of aliens. Besides, experiences of aliens would not prove that they exist, but they would at least add to the probability that they exist. In a similar way, religious experiences cannot prove that God exists but the sheer number of them makes it more probable that their source is what they say it is.

Obviously experiences "of God" don't prove God exists. The number of human "experiences of God" does not even make it more probable that God exists. It only proves that humans have various experiences which they interpret subjectively through their own minds, preconceived ideas and beliefs in order to try to make sense of them. One describes their experience as being "from God" and so the rest follow suit like sheep because they don't know any other way to explain them and the explanation that "God told them" or "God revealed himself" to them is acceptable in religious circles. It makes them sound "spiritual" anyway and some believe "being spiritual" is a goal which all ought to try to attain.

The thing is, religious experiences are not casual things that people simply make up to sound spiritual. Religious experiences are life-changing and profound events.
Furthermore, your explanation would not account for all the religious experiences of atheists.

Inner experiences of the mind and heart are what they are. They are natural actions and reactions of the body to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. No supernatural beings cause them any more than a person called "Mother Nature" causes natural phenomenon in nature or some supernatural "devil" forces evil people to kill others.


This is a poor analogy, natural phenomena exist with or without the existence of 'Mother Nature' and evil is committed with or without the existence of the devil. These are everyday actions that can be explained easily using science. In contrast, science cannot explain why the vast majority of religious experiences happen.

The human mind contains many imaginations which can cause people to deceive themselves and get totally lost in their own imaginations. That is why it is necessary to do all we can to understand the difference between fantasy and reality in any areas of life. Even scientists can get lost in chasing science fiction and truly believe it is some kind of reality.

I agree, but again I think it is overly sceptical to put every single religious experience down to imagination.

Skepticism is necessary if you don't want to be fooled by the illusions and delusions of life. I don't think anyone can be overly skeptical. Lowering ones guard can cause a person to "be shot". Life creates many illusions and delusions. The human mind and perception does not help since it is very easily fooled by illusions. That is why so many illusionists are successful entertainers. They keep people on their toes wondering how the tricks are created. To understand that our own minds play tricks on us keeps us questioning our own beliefs instead of allowing us to take anything for granted. It keeps us alert and makes it harder for people to deceive us.

With that logic, why should we take the empirical world seriously? If you say we ought to be overly sceptical then what justification do we have for trusting our sense experience?
You risk becoming trapped in, as Richard Swinburne put it, 'a sceptical bog'.
At the end of the day, if millions of people claim to have experienced X, then you must at least consider that X is probable.


Now back to the concept of Energy not being created or destroyed. If that is true then all things that exist today have always existed and are simply a manifestation of the eternal energy. None of them can be created or destroyed but they simply change form from invisible to visible and back to invisible. That would create an eternal illusion which will most likely fool humans for all eternity because they are always trying to find a beginning and end to something which ultimately has no beginning or end.
My Conclusion... Energy and God must simply be different words which describe the same thing. ie, that which has always existed and has no beginning or end.
All that exists is energy. All that exists is God. We must all be part of that Energy/God which is eternal.

You make an interesting point, although I think you make the error of extrapolating laws of physics outside the realm of physical space, where they have no proven veracity. The laws of physics are only referring to that which is within the universe, not what is outside or preceding.

If the laws of physics are correct and apply to all physical things which include physical space. The whole concept of "outside the realm of physical space" is illogical because space is infinite. There can be nothing outside infinity due to infinity having no physical boundaries. The same applies to energy. It has no boundaries so how can you even conceive of anything outside of it? You need a boundary to conceive of something outside a boundary.
Where is the boundary of space? Where does it begin and end? Where does the wind begin and end? Where does energy begin and end?
Humans create beginning and ends which are relative to whatever they are measuring. They create their own measurements which are really meaningless in the big scheme of things. Any human measurements are only relevant to human perception and nothing else.
Ask an ant to measure things and see what answers they come up with.
Ask a dog and find out how things appear from their perceptions.
The fact is human perception causes humans to believe that what they see is real rather than make us question whether we are being fooled by our own eyes, perceptions and preconceived ideas.

After the Big Bang the universe expanded (an increase in spatial dimensions), if there is nothing outside the universe then what did it expand into?
And if the universe is infinitely large then it would have to have been expanding for an infinite time, which it has not. Therefore the universe is not infinitely large.

The universe is not infinitely large, though it is continually increasing in size.

It may of course be that the space it is expanding into is infinite but we do not know either way.

However, many Cosmologists believe it has stopped expanding a number of times before so maybe it will stop again?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 7:26:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 6:52:19 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
I like the cosmological argument because it brings up some really interesting philosophical questions about actual infinites and cause-and-effect.

The only problem there is, which Cosmological Argument. Cosmology, along with just about every branch of science is a "house divided". Even more so since the discovery of the elusive "Dark Matter" and "Dark Force" that no-one can see but many wonder at the apparently visible effects of.

Mmmmmm.
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 7:43:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 7:26:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:52:19 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
I like the cosmological argument because it brings up some really interesting philosophical questions about actual infinites and cause-and-effect.

The only problem there is, which Cosmological Argument. Cosmology, along with just about every branch of science is a "house divided". Even more so since the discovery of the elusive "Dark Matter" and "Dark Force" that no-one can see but many wonder at the apparently visible effects of.

Mmmmmm.

How funny is that?
Well done madman, you just proved the existence of ghosts.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 8:13:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 7:43:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/22/2014 7:26:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:52:19 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
I like the cosmological argument because it brings up some really interesting philosophical questions about actual infinites and cause-and-effect.

The only problem there is, which Cosmological Argument. Cosmology, along with just about every branch of science is a "house divided". Even more so since the discovery of the elusive "Dark Matter" and "Dark Force" that no-one can see but many wonder at the apparently visible effects of.

Mmmmmm.

How funny is that?
Well done madman, you just proved the existence of ghosts.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Not me, lol, Cosmology. And who says it si Ghosts. No-one knows what it is. I just added an Mmmmmmmmm as a sign of thought needed.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 2:20:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 6:30:08 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/21/2014 3:48:02 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:51:40 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:23:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 5:32:17 PM, Philocat wrote:
There are a fair few arguments for the existence of God, each with varying effectiveness. I'm curious as to which is most favoured by people here on DDO.

What's yours? Also, do go ahead and discuss any of the above arguments in this thread.

The concept called God obviously exists. The invisible supernatural character cannot exist. If he did we would need to embrace and accept all the supernatural mythical gods in history as existing because they are just as feasible as each other. Logic and common sense convinces us that all invisible supernatural characters are mythical.
Those who want to keep just one of them to believe in are fooling themselves. They are as gullible as a child who refuses to give up a favorite fairy tale character. They are not using logic or common sense in their thinking.

Not necessarily, you are making the mistake of thinking all the different perceptions of gods are distinct, mutually exclusive perceptions. I would argue that each god is merely a different perception of the same God.
Besides, my arguments clearly argue for an omnipotent God, they cannot be used to argue for other supernatural beings.


If every god is merely a different perception of the same God, ultimately your omnipotent God is made up of the body of mythical gods which are all personifications of various aspects of life in general.
That makes the omnipotent God the ultimate corporate body of life in general. It does not mean the character exists any more than the mythical gods which are all members of the body of the ultimate God.
Your own logic will tell you invisible supernatural beings really don't exist any place except in human imagination. Gods are all mythical. If the ultimate God is made up of all the mythical gods then logically the ultimate God is just as mythical as the minor gods.

No, I do not argue that the 'minor gods' are mythical in the sense of non-existence, but mythical in the sense that all the characteristics attributed to them are based on the false assumptions that they are 100% veridical.
Ultimately, my arguments only assert the existence of an omnipotent God, not any other 'minor god'.

You previously said "I would argue that each god is merely a different perception of the same God."
Are you saying the gods listed on http://en.wikipedia.org... are not mythical at all and actually exist in reality?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 2:42:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 6:37:46 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/21/2014 4:10:33 PM, Skyangel wrote:

IF the universe is made of physical energy which cannot be created or destroyed, it must have always existed. Therefore there can be no time "prior to the universe". IF the universe = energy which cannot be created or destroyed, it is just a manifestation of the energy which has always exited. If you believe the universe once did not exist you are basically implying energy once did not exist and was indeed created.
If that is true, what created that energy? Either all energy in existence has always existed or it was created. Which is it?
Yes, I am implying that energy did not exist at some point and was therefore created. This is because the Big Bang implies a beginning of existing matter. Thus it is not unreasonable to suggest that energy came into existence.

Well you better form a scientific theory to explain to all scientists how energy can be created because I am sure they would love to know.
If it was created at any point in time it must be possible to create it and therefore the law of conservation of energy would be false.
Come up with an explanation for how energy was created and I am sure the scientific community will give you some kind of award.

Are you arguing with the law of conservation of energy and claiming energy can indeed be created and destroyed? If it can, how is it created and destroyed?
Are you just arguing that energy just appeared by chance? It magicked itself into existence? Are you saying it can be created because you want to keep believing in an invisible supernatural creator who created the energy rather than understanding that "creator" is the energy which has always existed?

No of course I am not saying it appeared by chance. If anything that is what most atheists say. I am saying that energy was created by God.
Who created God? ... Mary, his mother?

No supernatural invisible beings exist. Supernatural beings do not create anything in reality. They are imaginary characters who do only what their authors authorize them to do.

If everything is indeed made of "energy" which has always existed then theoretically all of us have always existed and will always exist. Any beginning or end would therefore be nothing but an illusion which deceives human perception and leads us all astray.

Again, this rides on the assumption that energy has always existed.

Science is what teaches the concept of energy always having existed. Do they base that on an assumption? Are scientific theories based on assumptions?

It is an assumption to assume that scientific laws apply to events prior to the universe or even its very early history. Stephen Hawking maintained that physical laws break down at a singularity (the Big Bang).

Either the universal laws in existence today have always existed or both science and religion are basing all their ideas, concepts and theories on a presumption that once upon a time nothing existed, not even energy.
Although religion holds on to the fantasy that a supernatural being named God has always existed and must be the cause of everything.
Obviously something has always existed. Logically that something must be physical otherwise no physical things would exist today. You need to start with something physical to create any other physical things. You cannot start with nothing and end up with something physical.
Therefore something physical must have always existed. Otherwise you have no choice but to believe physical things appeared out of nothing.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 3:03:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 2:42:56 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:37:46 AM, Philocat wrote:

Yes, I am implying that energy did not exist at some point and was therefore created. This is because the Big Bang implies a beginning of existing matter. Thus it is not unreasonable to suggest that energy came into existence.

Well you better form a scientific theory to explain to all scientists how energy can be created because I am sure they would love to know.
If it was created at any point in time it must be possible to create it and therefore the law of conservation of energy would be false.
Come up with an explanation for how energy was created and I am sure the scientific community will give you some kind of award.




No of course I am not saying it appeared by chance. If anything that is what most atheists say. I am saying that energy was created by God.
Who created God? ... Mary, his mother?

No supernatural invisible beings exist. Supernatural beings do not create anything in reality. They are imaginary characters who do only what their authors authorize them to do.



It is an assumption to assume that scientific laws apply to events prior to the universe or even its very early history. Stephen Hawking maintained that physical laws break down at a singularity (the Big Bang).

Either the universal laws in existence today have always existed or both science and religion are basing all their ideas, concepts and theories on a presumption that once upon a time nothing existed, not even energy.

Or, as scripture suggests God himself is energy, and created everything from his own substance.

That would, of course, mean that he also created teh physical laws they exist by

Although religion holds on to the fantasy that a supernatural being named God has always existed and must be the cause of everything.

It's no fantasy. God is real, very real.

Obviously something has always existed. Logically that something must be physical otherwise no physical things would exist today. You need to start with something physical to create any other physical things. You cannot start with nothing and end up with something physical.

That is not in fact logica;, because the only thing whihc cannot be destroyed is ebergy, and as splitting the atom proved, everything starts with energy, even physical matter.

Therefore something physical must have always existed. Otherwise you have no choice but to believe physical things appeared out of nothing.

Again, not so. The only thing that has always existed is God, God is energy, intelligent energy, but energy none the less, and he created everything physical from his own substance, energy.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 3:20:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 2:20:32 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/22/2014 6:30:08 AM, Philocat wrote:

You previously said "I would argue that each god is merely a different perception of the same God."
Are you saying the gods listed on http://en.wikipedia.org... are not mythical at all and actually exist in reality?

I thought I would piock up on this point from Philocat apparently.

It is not true that all Gods are the same God, Howevr all God's other then the true God are different Deons who followed Satabn in his desire for worship and formed their own relisiongs and following.

Either they, or Satan himself, are behind the many false versions of Christianty for the same reason.

Therefore every single one is an Angelic creation of God that chose to misuse the free will he gave them.

Also, every single one of them is trying to take worship away from teh one true God and creator of all things.