Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
Alienated Being

Prove to me that God exists.

858 posts in this topic

PA

No, in my opinion. They're simply being vivid in stating their objection to your premises, based upon the facts they see around them.

Obviously, to derive sadistic pleasure requires the capacity to experience pleasure, which is not one of your premises. Nor is it consistent with "God doesn't exist at all," which would be a premise for many who contribute here. So, what is it, then?

I disagree, in my opinion they are basing their views on a set of assumptions, just as I am. Not the assumption that "God doesn't exist at all", I've already agreed that they don't factually believe in deities. However, when they say "if God exists" (assessing a hypothetical) "then God is either a or b" (asserting a set of assumptions about what God should be like IF it exists. I'm simply asking whether those assumptions are the only assumptions. If God exists and is all-knowing and all powerful then either a- he is either sadistic, or b- he doesn't care about us. Both of these conclusions are based on the assumption that if God exists then its primary desire for us humans is for us to be happy and healthy all of the time.

I don't think that is a necessary assumption to use, hence the reason why I questioned that assumption to begin with. It doesn't automatically make me right, I'm just pointing out that any argument about God is based on a set of assumptions that we think should be attributed to God (whether we believe it exists or not, the hypothetical "if" asks us to define God based on said assumptions).

Does that make any sense?

Our conversation began with children routinely starving to death. Presumably, any other temporal calamity for children would fall under the same divine discretion. I would wonder whether "child victim" is even a category for special scrutiny in God's moral deliberation. That seems like a very mammalian idea, something we are and he isn't.

However, I don't think there's anything in my proposal that requires God to decide everything which concerns humans categorically. He could decline to intervene without ever considering the consequences to individuals, saying neither "good" nor "bad," just "not my problem," assuming the matter detains his attention at all.

If we are going to be "Bible based," then a fair reading of that record, in my opinion, is that when God has a temporal objective, then whoever gets in the way gets run over. Categories that matter to us, like "child" or "non-combatant," don't seem to matter much to him. "Whatever it takes" seems to be the standard of moral action.

How old was the youngest Egyptian first-born? The Bible doesn't even bother to say. That silence, in my opinion, tells almost as much as the killing itself.

Fair point, though I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say that it's neither good nor bad, just "not my problem" - I can agree that categories that we impose on morals may not be held by God. As to the question of the youngest Egyptian first-born, I was always under the impression that it was every first-born, and that included grandfathers as well as toddlers. If a grandfather was a "first-born" in his house, he was going to die. Most people think about it in terms of young kids, but I am not certain of that. It would of course imply that the Pharaoh who held the throne during Moses' day was not the first born (perhaps an older brother/sister died at an early age, for example).

Back to your point, though, I'm fairly certain that the morals we hold today are not universally the morals that God wants us to have. But I believe that we can try our best through understanding God from his perspective (this again comes down to belief, not any empirical proof of right or wrong). Any further mistakes on our part I guess we'll have to trust that God will understand and forgive.

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PA

Does that make any sense?

Yes, of course. I just think you are underestimating how much some of your debating opponents are not offering any speculative theology of their own, but rather they are feeding back to you your own premises. Or, at least your own premises as they understand them.

... the youngest Egyptian first-born, I was always under the impression that it was every first-born, and that included grandfathers as well as toddlers.

That may well be. I'm the wrong person to ask, obviously. I focused on the youngest, since there seemed to be an emphasis on children as victims of calamity in our discussion. But yes, a first-born adult who had no say in Pharaoh and Moses' dispute would also have some reason to complain at being drafted into the role of a spear-carrier in that divine production number.

Back to your point, though, I'm fairly certain that the morals we hold today are not universally the morals that God wants us to have.

Lol, you and I may not agree on the particulars, but I'll gladly admit that there may be some truth in what you say there :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PA

Yes, of course. I just think you are underestimating how much some of your debating opponents are not offering any speculative theology of their own, but rather they are feeding back to you your own premises. Or, at least your own premises as they understand them.

I tend to disagree but I do see where you are coming from. If this be the case though, these people are not actually feeding back ALL my premises/assumptions. They take two of the assumptions - that God exists and is all-powerful, but ignore my other assumptions (in this instance, that happiness is not the reason God put us here). They then ignore that assumption and go on to impose their own idea that that if my other assumptions are correct then God is either sadistic or doesn't care. I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere - perhaps a variation on the straw man fallacy since they are only addressing part of my argument and thus thinking that they have successfully countered all of my argument.

That may well be. I'm the wrong person to ask, obviously. I focused on the youngest, since there seemed to be an emphasis on children as victims of calamity in our discussion. But yes, a first-born adult who had no say in Pharaoh and Moses' dispute would also have some reason to complain at being drafted into the role of a spear-carrier in that divine production number.

The discussion we were having at the moment revolved around children simply because I chose to refer to a practice that our society and culture deems as possibly the worst crime any person can commit. It was an entirely human argument designed to address your statement that it is God who decides what is "good" and "evil".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='Alienated Being' timestamp='1329773874' post='4209829']

Again, to fully establish the notion that children develop a sense of a deity, they would need to be completely isolated from all forms of potential variables. They weren't. Children weren't isolated inside of a facility from the day they were born, kept away from all forms of media. You can't prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that children form the idea that god exists independently... it doesn't make any sense. I'd hardly consider it a valid study.

That is your problem of disbelief getting n the raod of the facts. I believe the scientists, who said they worked with very young chidren, including those who had never been introduced to the concepet of god These were nt religious peole but modern scientists in a range of disciplines and countries. It really isnt that hard to find such children today.
We have evidence to suggest that cave men may have had a sense of spiritualism, but that doesn't indicate that a belief in a deity was present. Again, they didn't have technologies available to them to explain perfectly natural phenomena, whereas today, we do...
I disagree with this, historically. Again, i think you are allowing you rdesire to eliminate religion as a natural humnan force influence your thinking. The human brain is no differnt today from 100000 years ago. Modern "cave men" create deities including those of animism and natural forces. So, given, the same environments and brain function, so too would have people, such as cromagnon and neandertal people. As soon as one recognises the spiritual "nature" in thought patterns, of the human mind, it is obvious that once a huma level mind evolves it begins creating deities. The earliest temples and writings, going back more than 10000 years illustrate this.
Science and technology DOES give a fairly pragmatic and logical explanation as to how this planet came into being, independent of a deity.

Well of course it does and I accept it as scientific truth. HOWEVER, humans will one day be able to crete and populate planets. Not really too far in the future. That reality opens my mind to other possibilities as well. What we can do others can certainly also accomplish.

Also, we have evidence suggesting a sense of spiritualism involving nature, however, we don't have any evidence to suggest that they fully invest belief into a deity.

A sense of spiritualism involving nature DOES include deities. They began with the circle of the earth and the sky represented i very early carved forms of "jewellery" and totems, progressed to the moon and sun, and then split up into animist and other deities. Much later they took human form in peole's minds and finally were established a a monotheistic personal god by the "people of the dust" or hebrew people about 5000 years ago. The cave paintings of lascaux etc., the hunting ceremonies of cromagnon people, the burial practices of neandertal and cromagnon people among other archaeologicla evidences illustrate the thought processes of those people Such thought processes included a recognition and worship of many forms of "the divine" Those forms of the divine are deities, albeit not quite like the modern deity of god as sen by christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if god doesn't exist who do you think made this galaxy.?Where our life came from?And why would people invent this kind of supernatural being??That is a question for Antichrist ..:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PA

...to address your statement that it is God who decides what is "good" and "evil".

Then let me clarify, I only meant that God decides what's good for him to do or to be (in other words, God would decide what's "good" in a human's statement "God is good").

How easily incompleteness creeps in :) . We never really got to the questions of whether God also has an opinion about what's good for people to do or to be, and if he did, why people should care about that apart from God's prerogative to enforce his view, if he wished.

It's also a nice illustration of part of your point, though. You "filled in" the ambiguity in my statement with other premises of your own, most notably that there is some sense in which it is settled that God's opinion about human affairs ought to be of interest to humans. I wouldn't assume that, and am unpersuaded by the several arguments for it which I've heard.

To some extent, then, maybe your opponents' "sadisitc maniac" does come from inside their camp, and is used to fill in the gap that they detect in your premises. I am not so sure, though, that the "gap filler" is that God seeks human happiness in time and space.

When we're talking about mass starvation, pandemic disease as a supplement to diplomacy, child abuse, etc., we are a long way from discussing "happiness." As means to achieve an end, these things are literally hostile. If their prevalence is merely acquiesced in by God, then questions about his indifference to people, whether it is actually real or only apparent, seem inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me use some example.I have a pen then i will put it in a empty place...This is the question who put that pen in that place ??And the answer is me..Right??..Imagine the pen is the earth or all of the planet i our galaxy.Then imagine the empty place is the galaxy.And imagine that me is the god.And the question is Who put that thing in the galaxy??The answer is???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me use some example.I have a pen then i will put it in a empty place...This is the question who put that pen in that place ??And the answer is me..Right??..Imagine the pen is the earth or all of the planet i our galaxy.Then imagine the empty place is the galaxy.And imagine that me is the god.And the question is Who put that thing in the galaxy??The answer is???

Let us suppose than in another 10000 years, a monkey evolves to the same point as us and asks the same question. Is the answer the same? Ie self aware sapient beings know they are self aware. They know they are creative. Their minds are thus biased to think that they must be the product of a likewise sapient and creative being, but it ain't necessarily so.

From our species perspective, we will watch the monkey evolve, and come to ask the same question, and we will know that god did not create him as a sapient being, but that he evolved to the self aware state he exists in. Its all a matter of perspective.

A pen is an artefact created by a sapient mind. A planet is not. And that is evidenced by the many differences between the nature of a planet and of a pen. There is no explanation for how a pen may come to be, naturally. There is a simple, logical and easily understood explanation for how a planet, and the life on it, can come into being naturally. (I am sure we've all seen the documentary on it) :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahm..So do you agreed that you are from a monkey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahm..So do you agreed that you are from a monkey?

It is a bit more complex than that, but basically yes. I am a product of evolution. One day monkeys will be as evolved as we are now. By then we will be much more evolved in many ways. A lot of that evolution, in our case, will be through genetic engineering, where we improve in many ways upon the basic human stock through bio technologies. Eventually we will become something a modern human might not even recognise, but our ancestry will always be human'

In my opinion, one of god's prime roles and responsibilities is to see us through this difficult time of human childhood and adolescence into our maturity of wisdom and spirit. In turn, we will be required to do the same for younger species, as they evolve into sapience, both on earth and on other planets.

PS Any student of both humans and apes/primates can easily see that we are of the same family. We have the same traits, characteristics, and drives/motivations. Only our self awareness and sapience allows us to rise above those animal drivers and to transform ourselves into something of a differnt order.

PS did i detect a sniff of condescension in that question Misplaced I think . I would be proud to be evolved from a maonkey They are quite remarkable creatures and probalby only a realtively short period of time from becoming like humans were 50 to 100000 years ago. And i would like to play a part in raising them into a new form of sapient, self- aware species, like humans.

It would be one way to share our universe with other sapient beings. It is lonely being the only sapient race on earth. (gods /angels excepted of course) Again, one role of god and angels is to raise primitive beings safely into sapient ones, and then see them through the danger period where knowledge exceeds wisdom. :innocent: We are not there yet ourselves.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is your problem of disbelief getting n the raod of the facts. I believe the scientists, who said they worked with very young chidren, including those who had never been introduced to the concepet of god These were nt religious peole but modern scientists in a range of disciplines and countries. It really isnt that hard to find such children today.

Where did I say that the scientists themselves were religious? Just because the children were very young, that doesn't indicate that they weren't exposed to the concept of a god.

I disagree with this, historically. Again, i think you are allowing you rdesire to eliminate religion as a natural humnan force influence your thinking. The human brain is no differnt today from 100000 years ago. Modern "cave men" create deities including those of animism and natural forces. So, given, the same environments and brain function, so too would have people, such as cromagnon and neandertal people. As soon as one recognises the spiritual "nature" in thought patterns, of the human mind, it is obvious that once a huma level mind evolves it begins creating deities. The earliest temples and writings, going back more than 10000 years illustrate this.

Those illustrations don't necessarily indicate a god. It can indicate a sense of spiritualism, correct; but it doesn't indicate the concept of a god.

Well of course it does and I accept it as scientific truth. HOWEVER, humans will one day be able to crete and populate planets. Not really too far in the future. That reality opens my mind to other possibilities as well. What we can do others can certainly also accomplish.

Yes, it is very far into the future. We are nowhere near this possibility now.

A sense of spiritualism involving nature DOES include deities. They began with the circle of the earth and the sky represented i very early carved forms of "jewellery" and totems, progressed to the moon and sun, and then split up into animist and other deities. Much later they took human form in peole's minds and finally were established a a monotheistic personal god by the "people of the dust" or hebrew people about 5000 years ago. The cave paintings of lascaux etc., the hunting ceremonies of cromagnon people, the burial practices of neandertal and cromagnon people among other archaeologicla evidences illustrate the thought processes of those people Such thought processes included a recognition and worship of many forms of "the divine" Those forms of the divine are deities, albeit not quite like the modern deity of god as sen by christians.

This is an assumption. It doesn't indicate the existence of a deity at all... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want empirical evidence that suggests, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an omniscient, anthropomorphic supernatural being that governs the fates of his products exists.

I will write you a $10,000 cheque if you can convince me that a God truly, undeniably exists.

Go.

Were you not born of flesh by your Mother and the blood of life from your Father,open your eyes and look in the ******* mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you not born of flesh by your Mother and the blood of life from your Father,open your eyes and look in the ******* mirror.

No, I was born from my mother after her egg was fertilized by my father's sperm and about 9 months pasted. When I look in the mirror, all I see is me. If you are seeing something else, you might want to get some help for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you not born of flesh by your Mother and the blood of life from your Father,open your eyes and look in the ******* mirror.

You know what I see in the mirror when I wake up every morning? I see a normal human being, whom is the product of evolution and sexual reproduction. That's what I see. I see no evidence of a god when I look into the mirror. What I see when I look at your post is ignorance; ignorance to logic and scientific probability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I see in the mirror when I wake up every morning? I see a normal human being, whom is the product of evolution and sexual reproduction. That's what I see. I see no evidence of a god when I look into the mirror. What I see when I look at your post is ignorance; ignorance to logic and scientific probability.

This was said by another in the past or close to, is that to optain what is matter, one must know spirit,and in your case it is your Holy Spirit.

and when one optain's that which is God first conqure,s human consciousness.And so with you get to know th'y self not only in body but also in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you not born of flesh by your Mother and the blood of life from your Father,open your eyes and look in the ******* mirror.

What the **** does this have to do with god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Einsteine show that matter and energy are one so it is up to the beholder of the knowledge that get's them closer to the truth,it's up to you if you wish to share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was said by another in the past or close to, is that to optain what is matter, one must know spirit,and in your case it is your Holy Spirit.

and when one optain's that which is God first conqure,s human consciousness.And so with you get to know th'y self not only in body but also in mind.

What a load of bull.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the **** does this have to do with god?

We are all chidren of God our Father and when I say Father their has to be a Mother that stands shoulder to should arm and arm they are One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all chidren of God our Father and when I say Father their has to be a Mother that stands shoulder to should arm and arm they are One.

You're wrong, Zeus gave Prometheus the task of forming humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all chidren of God our Father and when I say Father their has to be a Mother that stands shoulder to should arm and arm they are One.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of bull.

:tu:

Even though I was born under the sign of the bull this that I say is not **** you must be from the maineland .

Knowing God is a personal thing and that way is to the God that is in you.

This is not about the I AM that is me this is you that wants to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong, Zeus gave Prometheus the task of forming humans.

WTF,They are all dead but God the Father is and will be for ever and ever.

Good old Sophiea or bad old Sophiea went off creating without her consort's approval and that was not right and you see where they are now Lord **** thank God our Father that they blew away to history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF,They are all dead but God the Father is and will be for ever and ever.

Good old Sophiea or bad old Sophiea went off creating without her consort's approval and that was not right and you see where they are now Lord **** thank God our Father that they blew away to history.

Zeus is the king of the gods, including your god. Not sure where you're getting this crap Zeus is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zeus is the king of the gods, including your god. Not sure where you're getting this crap Zeus is dead.

Zeus is no more and look soon all that was or I should say what's left will be no more as well.

You pagen's never give up do you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.