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 -
oslove

How to explain existence of God from reality

390 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Will Do
9 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

How is this unfair, Will? 

Subjectivity compared to objectivity is an unfair way to argue the existence of God in my opinion. 

But the subjective argument is all there is for anyone to humbly and honestly say they actually know that God does exist.

On its face, it is unfair for a person of faith to argue that they know subjectively that God does exist with someone who submits to the perspective that it doesn't meet the requirement for objective proof. Because that is true.

I'm not sure what else to say about this matter.

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
15 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Subjectivity compared to objectivity is an unfair way to argue the existence of God in my opinion. 

But the subjective argument is all there is for anyone to humbly and honestly say they actually know that God does exist.

On its face, it is unfair for a person of faith to argue that they know subjectively that God does exist with someone who submits to the perspective that it doesn't meet the requirement for objective proof. Because that is true.

I'm not sure what else to say about this matter.

 

 

Don't be limited by what you read from the posters in your camp, Will.

Read Thomas Aquina's "The Five Ways" 

Will, there is no right or wrong answer in argumentation.

There are facts or no facts. 

I am interested in your argument for god if you have one, personal experience means nothing other than to you to validate your faith, but it isn't transferable.

If you are here arguing for god on personal experience you must have something in mind are you trying to convince yourself or to preach to others?

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quiXilver

and all I keep hearing are stories...

granted... well thought out, sometimes very meticulous and clever... yet still, stories.

god said... god said, yet it's always a human speaking and it's always a story.

Edited by quiXilver
typo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quiXilver
8 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

and all I keep hearing are stories...

granted... well thought out, sometimes very meticulous and clever... yet still, stories.

god said... god said, yet it's always a human speaking and it's always a story.

does this say something about the nature of humans?  or the nature of god?

*shrug*

 

where is the light?  in the bulb?  in the space?

where is the music?  in the ears?  in the instrument?  or the breath and fingers of the musician?

where is god?  where is knowledge?  where is wisdom?  where is thought?  where is emotion?

how big is a thought?

 

so many stories... I need another bookcase.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
37 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

and all I keep hearing are stories...

granted... well thought out, sometimes very meticulous and clever... yet still, stories.

god said... god said, yet it's always a human speaking and it's always a story.

 

15 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

does this say something about the nature of humans?  or the nature of god?

*shrug*

 

where is the light?  in the bulb?  in the space?

where is the music?  in the ears?  in the instrument?  or the breath and fingers of the musician?

where is god?  where is knowledge?  where is wisdom?  where is thought?  where is emotion?

how big is a thought?

 

so many stories... I need another bookcase.

Oops.

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
4 hours ago, Will Due said:

I have thought about this a lot and I hope I'm wrong but I think that the main purpose for mortality is to act as a main line defense against limiting those who have distinguished themselves to be wholeheartedly unfriendly (or worse) towards others from being allowed to survive to the next world so that they cannot continue to make a living hell for those who do love God with their free will intact to love others in heaven as Jesus hopes all mankind will do here on earth some day.

To love one another with that same fatherly affection God loves us with first, and before we love our neighbors with that golden rule secondary brotherly affection, as we love ourselves.

I would think this being a nice assumption, affirmation, or just a simple thought. And I respect your thoughts, in the hope you respect mine. My thoughts have often reflected on this short life, and the many ideals of the possibility of the end of this short life. It could be just we're just here, and that's it. I have entertained that as well. I wonder, if this short life is a temporary learning advantage, so we accumulate what we learn for the next one. I also wonder if it's something else, like what you think. 

But, it is also something we don't know for sure. I think, it's great when this reflection helps the one who reflects it. Like my reflections are great for me, and at times, sustains me. :D  :tu:  

The thing is, though I can see you believe strongly God loves us in a fatherly fashion, I don't have any reason, an inkling, any evidence to see that fatherly way in the spirit. Even though I'm a woman, and yes, a mother, I have had a great father, and watch my husband be one too. I like to think, I'm aware of the difference. 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a nice of something that could be given in fatherly affection and love. Or, of a motherly affection and love. My observations have heard and seen others who feel a nice sentient in their beliefs. I feel it in mine. I think, if there is a positive hopeful note, it's that there might be a recurring theme of love in various forms of people's belief. :) 

4 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Well the good news is there is an excellent chance you are wrong, Will. 

I support and advocate unity, inclusiveness, and diversity too. 

And, I actually know religious people  who while believing in God do so in a way that incorporates these ideas, Stubbs is an exemplary example of tolerance and I think it is a good goal for you, you are a sweet guy, but by implying that some are intentionally mean spirited isn't the fast things track to tolerance. 

The problem is you have chosen a spirituality versus skepticism frame to present your perspective and it is not for the faint of heart, then you get offended, frustrated because you aren't gettting the validation you want, so then it becomes meanness and then next we will be bullies. 

 

The challenge or opportunity is to understand your brother without demonizing him even when he disagrees with you and to not personalize feedback, but grow from it. 

I would agree with this. I think, there should be a common thought of consideration and caring and how the other must feel. I wouldn't want to just quickly judge and condemn, (though I know I do it, and have to stop myself. And working in retail, definitely is testing my ................... reserves. :cry:  :rolleyes:  ) I think that is the key, having a stop and breather moment, so the common sense to come out. 

4 hours ago, oslove said:
On 10/6/2017 at 2:29 PM, Euphorbia said:

[...]

This has been said before, but what was god's beginning? If everything has to have a beginning then surely god does also. And then who or what created god's creator? I've never seen a satisfactory answer to this question. Please enlighten us.....

[...]

 

Thanks Eup for your reply.

In regard to your question above, it is pertinent that we work as to concur on a mutually agreed on concept of God.

We are now in the domain of our mind, when we seek to work together as to agree on the concept of God.

Why domain of the mind?

Because when we talk about concepts, as concepts are in our mind, we are in the domain of the mind, your mind and my mind.

Why is that very important?

It is very important in order that we will not be talking with each side on the concept of something that is the issue concerned in regard to its existence outside our mind, in the world outside and independent of our mind, while we each have a different concept of the thing at issue.

That is an irrational exchange, we will be talking past each other's head.

If I may, here is an illustration of two persons talking and arguing endlessly on the existence of say, God, with one party having the concept of God as similar to an orbiting teapot in space, and the other party with the concept of God as in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

They are talking even arguing irrationally, for they don't have the same concept of what they are talking and arguing about.

So, dear Eup, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God, namely: in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

_______________

 

Dear Eup, you will point out to me that I have not answered your question why God has to NOT have a beginning, when everything has got to have a beginning.

Well, at least you admit it. ;)  :no:  

I really don't think one should go back to explaining how everyone should work together to show our varying concepts of God, is going to help you answer the question asked of you. I think it was a good question. Can't you just simply answer it? 

4 hours ago, oslove said:

Dear Eup, you will point out to me that I have not answered your question why God has to NOT have a beginning, when everything has got to have a beginning.

My answer is as follows: I never say that everything has got to have a beginning.

You are the one with that kind of a statement, as follows from the quote from you, namely:

"This has been said before, but what was god's beginning? If everything has to have a beginning then surely god does also." - Eup

I guess, that's a clever thing there. You not saying everything has a beginning. And that, you brought on the questions for others to ask, about their own beginning. Well, as I have thought about it and pointed out in my posts, the yes answers does not necessarily means it's a true yes answer. So, if you think God has no beginning, well, you can take a human being, and think that might not have a beginning as well. Their flesh came from something, and their soul is not necessarily beginning and ending with their body's lifeline. 

How do you know, that God might not have a beginning? You don't know that for sure, do you? So, maybe, if you put the pattern of the beginning of a human being, wouldn't that be just as well for God? In fact, wasn't it believed, that man was made in God's image? 

4 hours ago, oslove said:

Dear readers, in this post from me: first, I am inviting Eup to work between us two, as to come to an agreed concept of God.

And second, I invite Eup to inform me and readers, where he has got the idea that everything has got to have a beginning.

There, dear readers, two items for us to work on.

Dear oslove, I invate you as well, to inform us, where you got the idea, that maybe God doesn't have a beginning. 

And for crying out loud, why do you to inform and introduce others of the same actions over and over? It seems to take up the majority of your posts, and leaving hardly any room for new input. I find it kind of distracting. I mean, if you want to be understood of your intentions and ideas, get to the point. Right? ;)  

4 hours ago, Will Due said:
4 hours ago, Sherapy said:

How can I grow Will, I would love to hear your feedback. 

 

Probably the same way we all grow I guess. It requires food.

When I stopped growing physically, a great tension built up in me. It was actually physically painful.

When I became aware that this tension was the result of the lack of growing spiritually, I realized that I needed to start eating the spiritual food that was set before me which I was refusing to eat because it tasted bitter. Bitter because my ego would not allow me to humble myself.

We've all experienced this. It's still bitter often but I eat anyway.

Oh that hunger. That hunger in more than one meaning. And when it feeds, it does cause growth. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
2 hours ago, Will Due said:

On its face, it is unfair for a person of faith to argue that they know subjectively that God does exist with someone who submits to the perspective that it doesn't meet the requirement for objective proof. Because that is true.

I personally wouldn't say unfair, but uneven. And that depends on the demands of each. Does the believer tell the unbeliever, that they believe subjectively for their own path, or are they using their subjective belief reasoning to augment the other's path? Or is the unbeliever is requiring objective proof for their own purpose, when confronted with the believer's goal of conversion, or wish it to convert the believer into a fellow unbeliever? 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I personally wouldn't say unfair, but uneven. And that depends on the demands of each. Does the believer tell the unbeliever, that they believe subjectively for their own path, or are they using their subjective belief reasoning to augment the other's path? Or is the unbeliever is requiring objective proof for their own purpose, when confronted with the believer's goal of conversion, or wish it to convert the believer into a fellow unbeliever? 

 

Exactly, for me it is appropriate to ask for evidence under these circumstances. 

 

Will is a nice guy, but he does Sunday go to meetin every new thread. :)

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
9 hours ago, Will Due said:

The best conception of God is revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus.

 

 

Or in the universe - or the atom.  Or the cell.....a baby.....or beautiful eyes - or puppies.  Wait....did I just say all that out loud.?  Oh dear.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
19 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Why does the study of the universe lead to naturalism rather than the "God hypothesis"? Because your god is no where to be found.

Naturalism is an assumption. A limited concept, as useful as it might be to understand the natural world. Many of the great thinkers (Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger, Collins ect.) all believe, or knew of a higher power through their sciences. Blind, mechanical processes didn't explain everything for them. It still doesn't today, despite what New Atheists like Lawrence Krauss and his ''Universe From Nothing'' claim.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Naturalism is an assumption. A limited concept, as useful as it might be to understand the natural world. Many of the great thinkers (Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger, Collins ect.) all believe, or knew of a higher power through their sciences. Blind, mechanical processes didn't explain everything for them. It still doesn't today, despite what New Atheists like Lawrence Krauss and his ''Universe From Nothing'' claim.

Naturalism is derived from the study of the natural world, nothing is assumed which can not be verified.

Many great thinkers believed in a God of gaps. Typically the argument for theism comes back to belief and ignorance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

Naturalism is derived from the study of the natural world, nothing is assumed which can not be verified.

Many great thinkers believed in a God of gaps. Typically the argument for theism comes back to belief and ignorance.

You'll never feel the fulfilling, where have you been my whole life, thirst quenching love of the Holy Spirit with that attitude. 

Stubbs

(Seriously, it seems by my observation, that 'the force' is something being considered as a real religion. In some areas. Also, by my observation, in a question, didn't George Lucas pattern the Jedi around ancient Asian warriors or monks?) 

I believe it's supposed to be Samurai warriors? 

samurai-versus-jedi-12-728.jpg?cb=133470

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

When people say of their beliefs "It's true!", all they are really saying is "It's true this is how I would like things to be".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quiXilver

Just because you thought something... and felt strongly about it, doesn't mean it's real, true, or even important.

 

Do you believe everything you think?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
13 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

 

Many great thinkers believed in a God of gaps. Typically the argument for theism comes back to belief and ignorance.

What about the materialism of the gaps? You are yourself pushing a circular argument. It assumes, in advance and without proof, that materialism is true and can somehow account for everything. It assumes that the gaps can actually be closed with a reductionist mindset.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oslove
21 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

[...]

How do you know, that God might not have a beginning? You don't know that for sure, do you?

[...]

Dear everyone here, let us talk on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

I guess we all know about some thought i.e. concept of what is God.

So, on logic, we have to work on our respective concepts of God, in order to arrive at a mutually concurred on concept of God.

Otherwise we are talking irrationally, we each one talking pest the head of another one.

 Do you see that?

 If I may, here is an illustration:

I gave this illustration an earlier post, but I guess no one took careful attention to it, for its connection to the need to work as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

Here is the illustration: In the context of a weight lifting contest, all competitors must have the same concept of what is a weight lifting contest; otherwise after the event, the contestants will be into endless argument on who has won the contest, as they have different idea of a weight lifting context, in particular on what criteria to determine who wins the contest,

Now, in regard to theist like myself having certainty that God exists, and atheists also having their certainty that God does not exist, I ask atheists, Do you at all have any concept of God, telling them I have a concept of God, and here it is:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

Now, I want to imagine that I am addressing one Bertrand Russell who is addressed Lord in the English heraldry:

"Lord Russell, will you just please tell me what is your concept of God?"

He tells me, "Certainly, God is similar to an orbiting teapot in space."

So I tell him, "Lord Russell, you have a concept of God that is distinctively and essentially different from mine."

And I continue,

Quote

 

Dear Lord Russell, as you were in your first marriage, you had for your bride, a girl from a very wealthy American family with a great devotion to the Christian faith in their own Quaker denomination, so you must know that for Christians, they all concur that God in the beginning created heaven and earth.

Before you abandoned your bride heiress of her family's wealth, I imagine you also practised with great ostentatious piety all the observances and routine doctrinal enunciations of the Christian faith, including that in the beginning God created heaven and earth.

I see that now you have compared God to an orbiting teapot in space; wherefore I can't see how we can have a debate on God existing, since you have a most ridiculous concept of God.


 

Dear readers here, my concept of God is that in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

If you all have different concepts of God from mine, do you not see that we have to first work as to concur on a mutually worked out agreement on the concept of God; otherwise it is silly for us to argue at all on His existence, as we will be talking past each other's head.

Now, addressing Stubbly, you ask me:

"How do you know, that God might not have a beginning? You don't know that for sure, do you?"

For this exercise of a debate on God existing, it is my hypothesis that God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

You and I know of things which have a beginning to their existence.

Now I ask you, Stubbly, Are there things which are in existence but do not have a beginning to their existence, like for example, from your question to me:

"How do you know, that God might not have a beginning?"

For the exercise of this debate on God existing or not, my answer to you is that I don't know that God might not have a beginning.

Okay, dear Stubbly, I love very much to have a sustained dialogue with you, on the debate God exists or not.

So, What about you, for the exercise of this debate, tell me, "How do you know, that God might not have a beginning?"

And also, this is the second item from me to you:

I know everything in the material universe has a beginning, even the material universe itself has a beginning.

Do you know of anything at all whether in the material universe or anywhere else, that does not have a beginning?

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness the answers of Stubby to my two questions to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
8 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

What about the materialism of the gaps? You are yourself pushing a circular argument. It assumes, in advance and without proof, that materialism is true and can somehow account for everything. It assumes that the gaps can actually be closed with a reductionist mindset.

You're going around in circles here.

"Naturalism is derived from the study of the natural world, nothing is assumed which can not be verified. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
1 hour ago, oslove said:

 Do you see that?

 

No.  It just seems like you're trolling your own thread now.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

 

"Naturalism is derived from the study of the natural world, nothing is assumed which can not be verified. "

Isn't dark matter assumed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
27 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Isn't dark matter assumed?

I'm puzzled why you'd say this when I'm talking about Naturalism.

Naturalism is the idea that only natural forces govern the universe. All study of the natural universe supports this. Supernatural forces or God governing the universe is therefore an assumption, there is zero evidence of such.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
21 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

Stubbs

(Seriously, it seems by my observation, that 'the force' is something being considered as a real religion. In some areas. Also, by my observation, in a question, didn't George Lucas pattern the Jedi around ancient Asian warriors or monks?) 

I believe it's supposed to be Samurai warriors? 

samurai-versus-jedi-12-728.jpg?cb=133470

I think you're right!! I seem to recall reading somewhere, or in a video or something, about that being what Lucas derived his force and the Jedi from. I think there was even a long ago Japanese warrior film, that seemed to be the inspiration or at least, a more Earthy type of Star Wars. 

17 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

When people say of their beliefs "It's true!", all they are really saying is "It's true this is how I would like things to be".

I knew it!!  

;)    :tu: 

2 hours ago, oslove said:

Dear everyone here, let us talk on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Why do you write like this? 

Quote

I guess we all know about some thought i.e. concept of what is God.

Don't be so fast. Remember, I don't. Because I didn't grow up being taught that concept. So, we all don't know, right? 

Quote

So, on logic, we have to work on our respective concepts of God, in order to arrive at a mutually concurred on concept of God.

Again, it would be understandable to realize that is not the case. Not just that, I didn't grow up with any concept. I know a lot of people, who consider God in the female concept. I had a professor, long ago, that considered him black. No wait! That was Jesus. 

Maybe, the reason you're not getting what you're asking here, the concept of our God, is because there is not consistent concept of God. 

Quote

Otherwise we are talking irrationally, we each one talking pest the head of another one.

How would you feel, if someone called you irrational when you disagreed with them? Think about that. 

Quote

Do you see that?

See what? No, seriously, did you just flap your hands, or pulled a rabbit out of a hat  or something? 

Quote

If I may, here is an illustration:

 

I gave this illustration an earlier post, but I guess no one took careful attention to it, for its connection to the need to work as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

 

Here is the illustration: In the context of a weight lifting contest, all competitors must have the same concept of what is a weight lifting contest; otherwise after the event, the contestants will be into endless argument on who has won the contest, as they have different idea of a weight lifting context, in particular on what criteria to determine who wins the contest,

Yeah, I remember this from before. I think the reason it wasn't considered, is probably because of it not being thought of in the same way you see it. Weights, weight lifting, and contests, are more than just concepts. They're real for all to see. So, that's why they can go on in progress. What you're asking is something that is 'perceived', not being used to lift 10 reps. Can you get ripped biceps with a concept? 

Quote

Now, in regard to theist like myself having certainty that God exists, and atheists also having their certainty that God does not exist, I ask atheists, Do you at all have any concept of God, telling them I have a concept of God, and here it is:

 

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

I think maybe I just solved something for you. And you probably helped using the weight lifting contest. Here, you are fixated on a concept. You are strong in the concept that is God and is the creator of the universe. I myself, don't feel I have seen anything here to see as more than a concept. I personally don't see how you can turn a concept into a reality. It might lead to something, but I think you're just staying fixated on just the concept idea. 

Quote

Now, I want to imagine that I am addressing one Bertrand Russell who is addressed Lord in the English heraldry:

 

"Lord Russell, will you just please tell me what is your concept of God?"

 

He tells me, "Certainly, God is similar to an orbiting teapot in space."

 

So I tell him, "Lord Russell, you have a concept of God that is distinctively and essentially different from mine."

 

And I continue,

 

2 hours ago, oslove said:

 

Quote

 

Dear Lord Russell, as you were in your first marriage, you had for your bride, a girl from a very wealthy American family with a great devotion to the Christian faith in their own Quaker denomination, so you must know that for Christians, they all concur that God in the beginning created heaven and earth.

 

Before you abandoned your bride heiress of her family's wealth, I imagine you also practised with great ostentatious piety all the observances and routine doctrinal enunciations of the Christian faith, including that in the beginning God created heaven and earth.

 

I see that now you have compared God to an orbiting teapot in space; wherefore I can't see how we can have a debate on God existing, since you have a most ridiculous concept of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear readers here, my concept of God is that in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

 

If you all have different concepts of God from mine, do you not see that we have to first work as to concur on a mutually worked out agreement on the concept of God; otherwise it is silly for us to argue at all on His existence, as we will be talking past each other's head.

 

Now, addressing Stubbly, you ask me:

 

"How do you know, that God might not have a beginning? You don't know that for sure, do you?"

 

For this exercise of a debate on God existing, it is my hypothesis that God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So where did you get your hypothesis from? So far, you're just stating it. 

Quote

You and I know of things which have a beginning to their existence.

Well, you may think that, but you can't know for sure if I think that. And I don't. There are a lot of things, that I think, is way out of our human minds to comprehend. So, I know of that there might be a beginning, there might not, or things that have different meanings and existence. You, yourself, said, you didn't mention God as to not having a beginning. So, you are stating he doesn't? 

Quote

Now I ask you, Stubbly, Are there things which are in existence but do not have a beginning to their existence, like for example, from your question to me

I consider time as existence, and consider that as not beginning and not ending. 

I also feel, there is so much more, that is like that, but have no words to describe them. 

Quote

"How do you know, that God might not have a beginning?"

I'm not saying as a statement, that God might have a beginning or not. I won't even state God as really existing or not. But, you do realize, if you're wanting our concepts of God, mine is, well, nothing really. You know, going back to my secular raised life. How do you know, that it's not really God, but my higher power. Or something even more complex? Just as I'm saying that I really can't say for sure, I don't think you can either. 

And the important thing is, I'm asking you. And I asked you, because you made the statement of God, not I? If you make statements of God, then I would reason, you came to that statement for a reason, and  proof to that, right? 

Quote

For the exercise of this debate on God existing or not, my answer to you is that I don't know that God might not have a beginning.

Cool! That's honest. :tu: 

But, if you don't know, how can you go on and assume you can prove God, if you don't know all about him? 

Quote

Okay, dear Stubbly, I love very much to have a sustained dialogue with you, on the debate God exists or not.

 

So, What about you, for the exercise of this debate, tell me, "How do you know, that God might not have a beginning?"

Again, I'm not the one making the assumptions of God, you are. You are the one, that started this thread, on the thought of trying to prove him? Right? Not I. I'm just questioning your points, to see how you came by them. Again, I grew up secular, so I wouldn't know. But then, I'm not the one feeling I can prove he did or didn't began. 

Quote

And also, this is the second item from me to you:

 

I know everything in the material universe has a beginning, even the material universe itself has a beginning.

 

Do you know of anything at all whether in the material universe or anywhere else, that does not have a beginning?

Do you really know everything in this material universe as to having a beginning? This great big, endless universe? I don't know either, but what is evident, in my thinking, is that we can't know for sure. That's the kicker. 

Quote

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness the answers of Stubby to my two questions to him.

Is it me, or are you a bit too........................... dramatic. A sustained dialog, ok, I'll bite. But, it's not something to blow a blood vessel over. *shrugs* 

But, anyways, there are my answers. I hope they make sense to you. Because, they make sense to me. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
3 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

 

"Naturalism is derived from the study of the natural world, nothing is assumed which can not be verified. "

Many great scientists believe in God while practicing methodological naturalism in their scientific work. It is nothing more than a strategy to study the world. But you are suggesting that nature contains all of reality. That there can't nothing but the material Universe. It's a belief system.

As Robert T. Pennock declared: "science is not based upon a dogmatic ontological or metaphysical naturalism, but rather makes use of naturalism only in a heuristic, methodological manner."

Edited by TruthSeeker_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
44 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

Many great scientists believe in God...

We've been here before. I don't care if they believed in the damn Easter bunny.

 

44 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

But you are suggesting that nature contains all of reality. That there can't nothing but the material Universe. It's a belief system.

Evidence shows everything is derived from nature. On the other hand you have absolutely nothing to show for your magical thinking.

 

44 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

As Robert T. Pennock declared: "science is not based upon a dogmatic ontological or metaphysical naturalism, but rather makes use of naturalism only in a heuristic, methodological manner."

I actually said "study of the universe leads to naturalism rather than the "God hypothesis""

 

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
8 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:
Quote

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness the answers of Stubby to my two questions to him.

When I responded to oslove's post last night, it was late. So, I forgot about this bit. 

Oslove, Sweetcheeks. Do you pay attention to everything you research? Are you aware of the little bits of notes and info, when you address and/or talk about something or someone? If you did.........................

Well, referring to me, you probably would have wanted to make sure you have the information to address a person properly of who they are, right? To be polite, right? 

Then, since it has been established on all my posts, (or at least click on the poster in each post to go to see what gender they are), that I am a her! ;)  

So, what else did you not notice? ;)  :w00t: 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

He did the same to me! I wouldn't mind but we both have 'female' marked quite clearly under our avatars.

  • Like 4

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.