Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Lilly

Why I Think God Exists

635 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

eugenonegin
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

if you have never had a personal experience with a dog, how can you be TRULY sure that dogs exist ?

The only true surety and knowldge we can have, and hold, about ANYTHING, is that gained via personal experience  We can all believe and have faith in things we have no personal experience with; eg by accepting the evidences and stories of others or of books videos etc.   but we can only really know that which we have experienced to be real and true. This also true for any gods.   So yes in fact the only people who can truly know gods exist are people who know gods exist because they have experience with them This is true for people and dogs as well.  Also true for aliens, ghosts, big foot  and any other entity. 

You can only know the flying spaghetti monster has an independent physical existence, once you have encountered him in person.  (gender  of said monster arbitrarily attributed)  Only then will you be able to describe the feel, taste, smell and temperature of his  supreme holiness. And if people dont believe those spots on your nice white shirt truly are a result of your encounter,  why, that is their problem .YOU know what you encountered. 

I've never had a personal relationship with a Blue Whale or an amoeba, but I am certain they exist.

Because of the evidence.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.
10 hours ago, Will Due said:

Pardon me. I wasn't thinking. 

Never mind, seems you are in good company now, since Mr Walker has turned up, with his never ending opinions and ramblings.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

if you have never had a personal experience with a dog, how can you be TRULY sure that dogs exist ?

The only true surety and knowldge we can have, and hold, about ANYTHING, is that gained via personal experience  We can all believe and have faith in things we have no personal experience with; eg by accepting the evidences and stories of others or of books videos etc.   but we can only really know that which we have experienced to be real and true. This also true for any gods.   So yes in fact the only people who can truly know gods exist are people who know gods exist because they have experience with them This is true for people and dogs as well.  Also true for aliens, ghosts, big foot  and any other entity. 

You can only know the flying spaghetti monster has an independent physical existence, once you have encountered him in person.  (gender  of said monster arbitrarily attributed)  Only then will you be able to describe the feel, taste, smell and temperature of his  supreme holiness. And if people dont believe those spots on your nice white shirt truly are a result of your encounter,  why, that is their problem .YOU know what you encountered. 

Wrong, surety and knowledge is gained through evidence, not personal experience.

A person's personal experience is unique to them, a scientific fact is universally true.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
12 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

Wrong, surety and knowledge is gained through evidence, not personal experience.

A person's personal experience is unique to them, a scientific fact is universally true.

 

 

A scientific fact is universally true, until it's revised, based on new discoveries made by another scientist's unique personal experience. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 hour ago, Astra. said:

Never mind, seems you are in good company now, since Mr Walker has turned up, with his never ending opinions and ramblings.

I appreciated your push back. I don't like being preached to either. I'll keep it in mind. This type of media format is prone to these kinds of problems. Of losing your place because of thoughtlessness.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

A scientific fact is universally true, until it's revised, based on new discoveries made by another scientist's unique personal experience. 

 

I accidentally "liked" your post without reading the last 5 words- which have made your statement ridiculous!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
5 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

I accidentally "liked" your post without reading the last 5 words- which have made your statement ridiculous!

While at work, isn't a scientist having a unique personal experience

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
Just now, Will Due said:

While at work, isn't a scientist having a unique personal experience

 

 

No, a scientific fact must be capable of validation which means it can be replicated by others using the same experimental conditions. There may be further research with different results, but again this further work must be amenable to validation.

A unique personal experience will always remain a unique personal experience- this may be of inestimable value to the individual, but of no value to science.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
3 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

No, a scientific fact must be capable of validation which means it can be replicated by others using the same experimental conditions. There may be further research with different results, but again this further work must be amenable to validation.

A unique personal experience will always remain a unique personal experience- this may be of inestimable value to the individual, but of no value to science.

I understand, but how can science have value without the personal experience of a scientist who works to validate or, because of new discoveries, revise the science of another scientist like Einstein did?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Show me how the Urantia Book supports eugenics.

Entire books have been written on the subject, friendo. There are also direct quotes taken from the book talking about inferior races. You can pretend it isn't a thing, but that's just obnoxious. Go peddle your cult someplaxe else. 

https://www.amazon.com/Eugenics-Race-Urantia-Halbert-Katzen-ebook/dp/B007MAFTPM


The real jeopardy of the human species is to be found in the unrestrained multiplication of the inferior and degenerate strains of the various civilized peoples - pg 921

 

Biologic renovation of the racial stocks—the selective elimination of inferior human strains. This will tend to eradicate many mortal inequalities.--- The Urantia Book, page 793

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, Podo said:

Entire books have been written on the subject, friendo. There are also direct quotes taken from the book talking about inferior races. You can pretend it isn't a thing, but that's just obnoxious. Go peddle your cult someplaxe else. 

https://www.amazon.com/Eugenics-Race-Urantia-Halbert-Katzen-ebook/dp/B007MAFTPM


The real jeopardy of the human species is to be found in the unrestrained multiplication of the inferior and degenerate strains of the various civilized peoples - pg 921

 

Biologic renovation of the racial stocks—the selective elimination of inferior human strains. This will tend to eradicate many mortal inequalities.--- The Urantia Book, page 793

Do you support "the unrestrained multiplication of the inferior and degenerate strains of the various civilized peoples?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Do you support "the unrestrained multiplication of the inferior and degenerate strains of the various civilized peoples?"

 

I do not support eugenics. Period, end-of-discussion. If you do, you are a trash person with trash ideas. It is not our job to declare demographics as inferior or superior. Sod off with your eugenics, go to a nazi forum or some other cesspit instead. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, Podo said:

I do not support eugenics. Period, end-of-discussion. If you do, you are a trash person with trash ideas. It is not our job to declare demographics as inferior or superior. Sod off with your eugenics, go to a nazi forum or some other cesspit instead. 

If you don't have children of your own, but decide to, will you consider the person's genetic (not racial) inferiority or superiority of the person you mate with?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

If you don't have children of your own, but decide to, will you consider the person's genetic (not racial) inferiority or superiority of the person you mate with?

 

Of course not. Because I'm not a ****ty person. You, apparently, are. As I've said, go peddle your eugenics-toting BS someplace else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khanivore
On ‎01‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 9:08 PM, Lilly said:

Ok, I'm not saying there's a 'personal God' or a God indicative of any particular religion. What I'm offering as a hypothesis is that *something* eternal has to exist. In philosophy this is called the Cosmological Argument. Here's the basic framework of this hypothesis:

Something exists (pretty obviously our universe)

Nothing can’t bring forth something

Therefore, something must have always existed in order to cause the universe to come into existence

The universe didn’t always exist (we know the universe came into being at the Big Bang)

Therefore, something outside of the universe must have always existed

 

So, what has always existed? What is eternal? IMO, this has to be God. Opinions?

You missed the full philosophical argument, it is also known and originated from the Kalaam Cosmological argument. It is a logical argument to reason for the existence of God, many other forum members have shown this before. Do conflate it as some are as empirical or some verifiable proof via the scientific method, because it is dealing with a metaphysical concept beyond the scope of science. Not that you have misunderstood to be as that, but some replies to your comment cannot fathom that based on the logic you presented, god has to exist, the logical answer is yes, but those that are irrational and cannot fathom this will still deny that it does mean it is god, it could something else. This is a mistake on their behalf, because all you have to do is apply conceptual analysis to conclusion of logical argument and that will give you the conclusion, that it has to be a god. See how many have questioned if this is your personal belief, even though logic gives you 100% true answers and the logic in the argument is sound, rather breaking down the logical argument and presenting something to counter it, they simply out right reject it, this is due to blind faith in the scientific dogma and not fully understanding the scope of science.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
39 minutes ago, Podo said:

Of course not. Because I'm not a ****ty person. You, apparently, are. As I've said, go peddle your eugenics-toting BS someplace else. 

Why are you so rude? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

All righty folks... we are getting a bit too off topic here with the current commentary, please stop it. And also, please keep commentary civil and to the topic, cease with any personal attacks.

Please read the site rules, found here: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/guidelines/

And also keep in mind the guidelines for this section of the UM forums. Please always respect the beliefs of other members - the bashing of specific religions, countries, races or belief systems is strictly disallowed. Several of the topics in this section cover some sensitive areas and it is important to respect the views of others; this means no flaming, no flamebaiting, no trolling and no personal attacks. We must also ask that members do not use the forums to promote or 'preach' their personal spiritual beliefs to others.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D.O'N
5 minutes ago, rashore said:

All righty folks... we are getting a bit too off topic here with the current commentary, please stop it. And also, please keep commentary civil and to the topic, cease with any personal attacks.

Please read the site rules, found here: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/guidelines/

And also keep in mind the guidelines for this section of the UM forums. Please always respect the beliefs of other members - the bashing of specific religions, countries, races or belief systems is strictly disallowed. Several of the topics in this section cover some sensitive areas and it is important to respect the views of others; this means no flaming, no flamebaiting, no trolling and no personal attacks. We must also ask that members do not use the forums to promote or 'preach' their personal spiritual beliefs to others.

Wish i had a mod like this on another forum i was on (nothing to do with mysteries etc) at least i dont remember being a mod if there was one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 hour ago, rashore said:

We must also ask that members do not use the forums to promote or 'preach' their personal spiritual beliefs to others.

Every post in this topic is used by members to "promote or 'preach' their personal spiritual beliefs to others" in order to explain "Why I Think God Exists."

Some don't think God exists though, so they promote or 'preach' beliefs that aren't spiritual. 

Am I right about that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Every post in this topic is used by members to "promote or 'preach' their personal spiritual beliefs to others" in order to explain "Why I Think God Exists."

Some don't think God exists though, so they promote or 'preach' beliefs that aren't spiritual. 

Am I right about that?

 

I believe the difference is that one does not need to preach/promote to form a rational argument :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
4 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

I believe the difference is that one does not need to preach/promote to form a rational argument :)

I know the drill. Let me paint a rational argument.

A person is born in his or her father's house. The one he planned and constructed for him or her to live and grow up in. Everyday he feeds him, provides him with everything he needs, his clothes, his pencils, all manner of things for his enjoyment. He assigns him one of the rooms in his mansion to occupy, and so forth, watches over him but allows him to make mistakes so he'll learn to be careful, and so on.

Then for some reason, other than being rational, this same person makes a big show and denies that his or her father exists, claiming there's no evidence. While all along he's just in the other room, out of sight. :rofl:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D.O'N
22 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I know the drill. Let me paint a rational argument.

A person is born in his or her father's house. The one he planned and constructed for him or her to live and grow up in. Everyday he feeds him, provides him with everything he needs, his clothes, his pencils, all manner of things for his enjoyment. He assigns him one of the rooms in his mansion to occupy, and so forth, watches over him but allows him to make mistakes so he'll learn to be careful, and so on.

Then for some reason, other than being rational, this same person makes a big show and denies that his or her father exists, claiming there's no evidence. While all along he's just in the other room, out of sight. :rofl:

 

 

Until said person walks into the room and sees his/her dad, you cant do that with God...

Edited by Baldylocks
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
18 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I know the drill. Let me paint a rational argument.

A person is born in his or her father's house. The one he planned and constructed for him or her to live and grow up in. Everyday he feeds him, provides him with everything he needs, his clothes, his pencils, all manner of things for his enjoyment. He assigns him one of the rooms in his mansion to occupy, and so forth, watches over him but allows him to make mistakes so he'll learn to be careful, and so on.

Then for some reason, other than being rational, this same person makes a big show and denies that his or her father exists, claiming there's no evidence. While all along he's just in the other room, out of sight. :rofl:

 

False equivalence. There is no way to walk into another room and reveal a deity. There is no physical trace, nor has there ever been. There is no reason to believe that such an entity exists, therefore. Your analogy further breaks down because tools and a home necessitate a builder, while the existence of the universe is not implicit proof of any sort of creator.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

Yes, no proof. But life is pretty nice living in a mansion. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.