Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Assuming a God exists, why yours?

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 12:28:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).

You can conclude that there can only be one God,

Because the very least definition used to define God is supreme, Supreme means first in rank or the highest authority, if God is not the first in rank or the highest authority, then He is not God, another being would claim the title, Therefore the word God, carries with it certain qualities and attributes.

Everybody is searching for the highest authority, hence everybody is seeking God, which is the same God, by definition.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 1:31:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:28:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).


You can conclude that there can only be one God,

That's a fallacy. It's like saying, you can only conclude there can only be one President, one Dictator, one Champion, etc. when there can be many, by definition.

If, for example, you believe in Christ and another believes in Allah, while another believes in Vishnu. The Christian doesn't accept Allah and the Muslim doesn't accept Vishnu.

Do you see the difference? Do you see what the OP is asking?

Because the very least definition used to define God is supreme, Supreme means first in rank or the highest authority, if God is not the first in rank or the highest authority, then He is not God, another being would claim the title, Therefore the word God, carries with it certain qualities and attributes.

And, those qualities and attributes are in every religion that describes their god. It is the details that are of consequence and validity, not the vague general term you offer.

Everybody is searching for the highest authority, hence everybody is seeking God, which is the same God, by definition.

And yet, when we consider the details, by definition, we find people seeking God, but certainly not finding the same God, by definition.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 1:41:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).

A to B; No visible Creator exists so all the visible gods that God's people believe in are false deities ( imaginary gods ).

I don't worry about people who don't listen to our Creator or obey His commandments. They will all know Him after this world is destroyed.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 1:48:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).

The reason why I believe in Bible God is the Bible and that I see things happening as the Bible telsl. I think it would not be possible without God. For example the prediction that Jews will be scattered and then gathered back. I think there is no other religious book that comes even close to the Bible.

Quran is basically new version of Bible. It is made because Bible was allegedly corrupted. I think that is ridiculous claim, because there is no good reason to say so. However, Quran is actually in many parts quite same as the Bible. Therefore I don"t entirely disagree with it.
ha1rtr1gg3r
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 2:16:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You can conclude that there can only be one God,

That's a fallacy. It's like saying, you can only conclude there can only be one President, one Dictator, one Champion, etc. when there can be many, by definition.

It's not the same, there is only one universe , there are multiple countries and leaders.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 2:39:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 2:16:12 PM, ha1rtr1gg3r wrote:
You can conclude that there can only be one God,

That's a fallacy. It's like saying, you can only conclude there can only be one President, one Dictator, one Champion, etc. when there can be many, by definition.

It's not the same, there is only one universe , there are multiple countries and leaders.

Good point. I suppose that may be the one and only example of 'supreme being' and 'universe'.... unless there are other universes with other supreme beings. I can concede that one, though, no problem.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 3:15:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 2:16:12 PM, ha1rtr1gg3r wrote:
You can conclude that there can only be one God,

That's a fallacy. It's like saying, you can only conclude there can only be one President, one Dictator, one Champion, etc. when there can be many, by definition.

It's not the same, there is only one universe , there are multiple countries and leaders.

There is no real universe. The universe only appears to exist because of a collection of stories by God's observers.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 3:19:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 2:39:26 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/14/2015 2:16:12 PM, ha1rtr1gg3r wrote:
You can conclude that there can only be one God,

That's a fallacy. It's like saying, you can only conclude there can only be one President, one Dictator, one Champion, etc. when there can be many, by definition.

It's not the same, there is only one universe , there are multiple countries and leaders.

Good point. I suppose that may be the one and only example of 'supreme being' and 'universe'.... unless there are other universes with other supreme beings. I can concede that one, though, no problem.

It's very possible that there are many Creators who created other virtual universes with vibrations.
uncung
Posts: 3,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 4:23:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The reason why I believe in Bible God is the Bible and that I see things happening as the Bible telsl. I think it would not be possible without God. For example the prediction that Jews will be scattered and then gathered back. I think there is no other religious book that comes even close to the Bible.

Quran is basically new version of Bible. It is made because Bible was allegedly corrupted. I think that is ridiculous claim, because there is no good reason to say so. However, Quran is actually in many parts quite same as the Bible. Therefore I don"t entirely disagree with it.

just because the bible says the jews will be gathered back it doesnt mean your God's version is the true one .
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 4:26:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).

That takes faith.

The minimalist God could have made the universe like an experiment and the left it alone to observe the outcome. This could account for what many take as an invisible God. But this is counter to an all knowing one. Unless it was just for sheets and giggles.

So I think an omnipotent omniscient God would have a purpose for any creative act. I think life is an attribute of the universe more likely not to exist. So I conclude a purposeful omniscient omnipotent God has a reason to bring about life.

Bias towards a social personal reason. Some key features between us and animals is mankind is able to plan far in advance of animals. We create things for the joy of creating things.

It's not as conclusive as other arguments, but I think God is a personal God and wants a freewill agent as a partner in the creative process here on earth, potentially beyound.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:21:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

..... how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).

I justify my knowledge of God because of personal revelation directly from God, showing me which Church is His, and teaching me of His true nature and character and of His Son, the Savior Jesus Christ.

People who make the same claim of revelation..... but for a false god, I 'deal with' by simply knowing they are wrong, but avoiding contention about it as much as I can...and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Those who are seeking truth will want to hear the truth (His sheep hear his voice), those people are the 'elect' who have been/are being prepared to receive the truth of the restored church, and it is to those individuals I seek to explain religious truths to.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:01:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).

It's pretty simple, really. I don't try to put God in a box. I don't even like using the title "God" because of all the connotations involved. I believe that there is a limit to how much we can know about God, and it leaves plenty of room for any or all of us to be right at times and wrong at times.

If two different cultures see a similarity in each of their Gods for whatever reason then so what? They are bound to overlap if there is only one God.
Electric-Eccentric
Posts: 1,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 9:35:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I personally view "God" as Life it's self.
That "spark/breath" that makes the human corpse animated.
Without IT you have a dead body that will most likely take on another host of life forms that will decompose the body until you have the materials that it all started out with in the first place.

Just add water..

I view God as Life and I can see, feel, realize and understand that
I AM god created in the image of Life.

This world says that we can believe and be anything we want or choose...

I choose Life

and I personally find that a Life that still has me smiling so much some days that my face will be sore and hurt at the end of the day.

works for me, myself and I

If I AM going "to follow and worship a God/god"

I would just as well choose One that I could Trust and Love with all my heart and existence.

Makes PERFECT sense to me.

But then I have never made claim of being normal or of this world.

I will leave the love/lust of this earthly world for those that require it.

but as for me and my god
We will be as One in unconditional Love and understanding.

works for me.
Life is what YOU make it,
Most just try and fake it...
uncung
Posts: 3,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 10:58:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

I justify my knowledge of God because of personal revelation directly from God, showing me which Church is His, and teaching me of His true nature and character and of His Son, the Savior Jesus Christ.

People who make the same claim of revelation..... but for a false god, I 'deal with' by simply knowing they are wrong, but avoiding contention about it as much as I can...and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Those who are seeking truth will want to hear the truth (His sheep hear his voice), those people are the 'elect' who have been/are being prepared to receive the truth of the restored church, and it is to those individuals I seek to explain religious truths to.

What make your God's version is the true one? Is it just because your mosque I mean church say so?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 7:01:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).

From what I have seen it all comes down to special pleading.

We are right they wrong.

We live in Gods truth they lives in man/satans lies.

They then form groups and reap ting this to themselves over and over again, reassuring each other they they are indeed in the truth and the "others" are wrong.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 7:26:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Without any secular assistance whatsoever.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).

Assuming a God exists, couldn't it be somebody's?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 8:06:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

According to the Bible, which is what I believe to be truth, it is absolutely impossible to know who God is. And no one seeks God. The only way anyone can know God is if God Himself steps in, and breaks that barrier. The only way anyone would seek him is if God takes the initiative to draw or compel an individual to seek Him.

So, either this is happening, or it isn't. It's that simple. I believe that He has in fact taken the initiative to reveal Himself to many individuals throughout history......namely...Jesus Christ.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).
One of the problems here is that there really isn't similar claims being made. And whenever the question of which God exists, the-go-to "e.g." is practically always Allah vs. Jesus. These discussions may as well revolve around the 2 Abrahamic religions as opposed to the idea of multiple gods. The term God is used very generically. We don't see the "may the god of Slovenia, Morroco, Venezuela, Bahamas, Brunei, etc., bless you" like we might expect from ancient NME civilizations that were more prone to promoting a national god figure. And even today's modern pagan associations with gods like Odin, Zeus, etc. are fairly trivial.

So if we stick with Jesus vs. Allah, there a lot of things to consider. It's far more deeper than placing the issue in the "Both make the same claim, therefore both must be false" category. For one, the various claims are not the same. A major issue with Islam is "non-personal relationship" with the creator. I've looked it into it myself. Jesus claims a personal relationship that entails a daily walk leading each individual into a very specific calling/ministry. The pastor who plants a church in Billings, Montana would essentially have been directed by the Holy Spirit to do so. That doesn't always happen that way, as some pastors admit to not following God's leading, but that's the general principle. That's something we don't see a lot of in the Islamic religion. One might be able to google some claim to have been lead by Allah to do something specific (I won't get into the terrorism thing), but it's quite rare. I've seen some references to a spiritual relationship with God among Muslims, but it's fairly vague.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 11:03:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 1:31:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/14/2015 12:28:17 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).


You can conclude that there can only be one God,

That's a fallacy. It's like saying, you can only conclude there can only be one President, one Dictator, one Champion, etc. when there can be many, by definition.

If, for example, you believe in Christ and another believes in Allah, while another believes in Vishnu. The Christian doesn't accept Allah and the Muslim doesn't accept Vishnu.

Do you see the difference? Do you see what the OP is asking?

Because the very least definition used to define God is supreme, Supreme means first in rank or the highest authority, if God is not the first in rank or the highest authority, then He is not God, another being would claim the title, Therefore the word God, carries with it certain qualities and attributes.

And, those qualities and attributes are in every religion that describes their god. It is the details that are of consequence and validity, not the vague general term you offer.

Everybody is searching for the highest authority, hence everybody is seeking God, which is the same God, by definition.

And yet, when we consider the details, by definition, we find people seeking God, but certainly not finding the same God, by definition.

Why are you still talking to me when I have no interest in interacting with you because you are immature and have bad conduct.

I am reporting you to Airmax for this, And as much as you want to believe that's it's because you have me stumped, just makes me view you as even more immature.

Stay away. You do not deserve my reply.
Atmas
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 11:28:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
An attempt at justifying tribalistic superiority, I'd imagine. By claiming "My god is real, and all others are false gods and therefore enemies of my god", we get a flimsy but common excuse for war. Of course, this would be spoken by the tribe head to the lower masses to get them riled up for battle, but the head is after the land and resources of the attacked. Since we live in a, comparatively, peaceful era, this has manifested itself as shouting matches (not counting the less civilized people who still kill over it).

And claiming the term "God" must mean a monotheistic god is incorrect. There were many gods before they were merged into one. Most fiction (like comics) often have many equal level gods or one high god and many lower ones. The only thing a god needs to do or have in order to be a god is to have the power to manipulate some or all of reality. Those who are subject to that reality, and unable to control it, are not gods.
Electric-Eccentric
Posts: 1,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:10:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
in the simplest of forms most arguing is just another version of basket weaving, thumb twiddling, loud humming and other popular distractions that seem to provide a temporary ESCAPE from the monsters that can dwell in the mind sets of those that are programed and $TRE$$ED beyond what they are comfortable with.

First we had road rage in the 70's
Then going postal in the 80's

Here we are off in the future from there and the tune of the day is that if you can go a little faster and do more at one time that you will be able to out run the confusion and such........
that is chasing you.

whistle while you work
just whistle while you work

and if you whistle enough
you'll surely grow up?

catchy tune anywho
Life is what YOU make it,
Most just try and fake it...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:35:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).

Because he is the only one able to produce accurate prophecy even thousands of years in advance.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:55:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am a Panentheist. My view is that we live inside of god and everything is a manifestation of god. My god is the sum of all things across all time with no boundaries. Yes Jesus was the son of god just as I AM, and so are you. It does not matter what you touch, you are touching god. I feel bad for people who cannot see their god, mine is everywhere I look. Your god is simply a limited perspective on my god.
Electric-Eccentric
Posts: 1,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 1:17:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I was to try and "pigeonhole" myself I would go with the character John Candy played in the movie Spaceballs.

Name's Barf, I'm a MOG, half man, half dog.
I'm my own best friend.....
Life is what YOU make it,
Most just try and fake it...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 4:26:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:18:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
Definition for this thread:
God: Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator of the Universe

When I debate God's existence, it is invariably for a minimalistic god (such as I just defined), which is a very different god to what 99% of people here believe in if they do.

Thusly, my position is that it's essentially impossible to even demonstrate wiht any confidence that even a minimalistic god exists. A similar debate occurs on the 'did Jesus exist?' debate, it is one thing to show a minimalistic Jesus exist (some preacher named Jesus who is loosely and naturalistically associated with the Pauline and Gospel accounts), but it's a completely different thing to show a triumphant Jesus (the one who did miracles, was son of God, etc.)

So, please, get from A to B. If God (the minimalistic one) is known to exist, then how does one justify their personal beliefs in God.

Second question, how do you deal with people who make exactly the same claim as you, but for a different God, with virtually the same reasons (e.g. Islamic God over Christian one).

- A minimalistic God as you mentioned must thus be:
*One.
*Self-Sufficient, & Eternal.
*Has absolute Free Will, Omnipotent & Omniscient.
*Disjoint from all that exists, thus disjoint from His creation.

=> Which coincides with the exact Islamic definition of God:
* "Say: He is Allah, the One! The Self-Sufficient Master, the Eternal, He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him." (112).
* "He is Allah, the Creator, the Initiator, the Designer" (59:24)
* "The Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds" (1:2)
* "Allah is the Creator of every thing and He has charge over every thing." (39:62).

=> If such a God exists, then worshiping Him is the natural thing to do, for He is worthy of worship, & all else is equally insignificant. Suggesting that such a God is not worthy of worship is absurd, for worship is recognising the insignificance of the self, & the significance of the Creator of the self, & thus denying that fact is nonessential.

- The question is thus Not what to worship? Or whether to worship or not worship that which deserves worship (that is God)? It's: how to worship God?

- & then the quest begins, if there is a Religion whose notion of God exclusively corresponds to the Necessary God, then that's one reason to start looking into it.

- In Islamic Theology there is a brunch dedicated to proving the theological concepts of Islam entirely based on Reason, it's called Dalailu al-'Aq'aid (some translate it as the Kalam General Argument).
=> This Kalam General Argument is a very very long, complex & complicated Argument that consists of Four Pillars, each Pillars contains 10 Principals.

> The First Pillar (the first ten Principals) deal with the proof of the Necessary God. The first Principal of that Pillar is the one commonly known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which deals with the existence of necessary uncaused cause). The other nine Principals deal with the nature of the Essence of God: Existence, Timelessness, Absoluteness, Uniqueness, Singularity, Necessity...

> The Second Pillar (the second ten Principals) deals with the Intrinsic Attributes of God: Absolute Free Will, Omniscience, Omnipotence & Life). & reciprocally, absolute Attributes can pertain, & only pertain, to an Absolute Essence.

> The Third Pillar (the third ten Principals) deals with the Effective Attributes of God: Creation, Initiation, Design, Predestination, Justice, Mercy, Revelation, & Delegation. & the necessity of the Separation between the God & His Creation <<< That is to say, 1. God is both Transcendent & Immanent; 2. The Immanence of God is necessarily compatible with the Islamic Narrative of the notion of God.

> The Fourth Pillar (the last ten Principals) deals with Prophethood, Miracles, the Unseen, the Interstice of Death, the Hour, the Day of Judgement, & the Final Destination.

==>> The idea here is we start from a pure notion of -minimalistic- God & we build our way through all the Theological Concepts in Islam, & so it all makes sense. & I very much doubt that this is the case for another Religion too. Unless I am wrong, half the Christian Doctrine can not be demonstrated through Reason, there is always that dominant element of Faith.

C/C: I can safely & rationally Justify why 'my' God. :)
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 4:29:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:35:09 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Because he is the only one able to produce accurate prophecy even thousands of years in advance.

- That's not True. Muhammad (pbuh)'s prophecies are more unique & more accurate & they are still being fulfilled, not that I doubt Jesus (pbuh) had prophecies of course, but so does Muhammad (pbuh).
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 5:37:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 4:29:27 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:35:09 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Because he is the only one able to produce accurate prophecy even thousands of years in advance.

- That's not True. Muhammad (pbuh)'s prophecies are more unique & more accurate & they are still being fulfilled, not that I doubt Jesus (pbuh) had prophecies of course, but so does Muhammad (pbuh).

Now, now, kiddies, we're not going to start a fight about whose daddy can beat up the other daddy, are we?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 5:57:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 5:37:09 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/15/2015 4:29:27 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:35:09 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Because he is the only one able to produce accurate prophecy even thousands of years in advance.

- That's not True. Muhammad (pbuh)'s prophecies are more unique & more accurate & they are still being fulfilled, not that I doubt Jesus (pbuh) had prophecies of course, but so does Muhammad (pbuh).

Now, now, kiddies, we're not going to start a fight about whose daddy can beat up the other daddy, are we?

- Apparently you haven't read what I wrote, we muslims believe in Jesus & thus in his prophecies, I'll be rejecting my own faith if I was to contest that.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Fido
Posts: 357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 6:25:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Assuming you believe God exists, then the term does not apply. If you see; God stands behind and around All; All creation of all sorts is hers. Then all terms are within God and all meanings. The definition of existence is inside of the definition of God. It has the relationship of genus to species. The definition of the species does not define the Genus. All the species are defined the genus in general terms. God does not exist. Existence is one quality of God, and that explains our affection for our own existence. Existence is God.
uncung
Posts: 3,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 7:26:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Because he is the only one able to produce accurate prophecy even thousands of years in advance.

many religions and faiths also claim own accurate prophecy. does that mean they believe in the true Gods the same you think your God's version is the true one?