Thread: Why God Exists.

As myself; I can't think of any argument for God. I mean, I could state some, but they wouldn't really be arguments because they would have logical gaps in, necessarily, as God doesn't exist.

I could say that the universe must have had a special first cause but I know there's no logical reason that this must have been God.

I could say that the universe is extremely fine tuned for life to emerge but I know the multiverse hypothesis solves that without introducing any new entity.

I could say that God is actually everything but I know that that's completely superficial and meaningless.

This thread didn't work before because the theists actually had no idea what the arguments for atheism were, whilst the atheists knew exactly what the arguments for theism were, which was very interesting. The Enterer is a good example of this. Apparently that's what filters into his brain whenever he hears an argument from an atheist.

Originally Posted by Xei

This thread didn't work before because the theists actually had no idea what the arguments for atheism were, whilst the atheists knew exactly what the arguments for theism were, which was very interesting.

Particularly interesting (and somewhat amusing) when you consider standard "you don't understand our argument" defence.

Originally Posted by Xei

As myself; I can't think of any argument for God. I mean, I could state some, but they wouldn't really be arguments because they would have logical gaps in, necessarily, as God doesn't exist.

I could say that the universe must have had a special first cause but I know there's no logical reason that this must have been God.

I could say that the universe is extremely fine tuned for life to emerge but I know the multiverse hypothesis solves that without introducing any new entity.

I could say that God is actually everything but I know that that's completely superficial and meaningless.

This thread didn't work before because the theists actually had no idea what the arguments for atheism were, whilst the atheists knew exactly what the arguments for theism were, which was very interesting. The Enterer is a good example of this. Apparently that's what filters into his brain whenever he hears an argument from an atheist.

I'm still holding out hope for a theist who knows whats up to do it.

Still holding out hope

Oh Xei, just humour us. You're a truly brilliant individual, I know you can make some shit up. You're creative enough to take this seriously, I think.

This is a great, GREAT idea for a thread. I'll give a shot as to why god must exist. (I'm agnostic, not necessarily atheist, but I certainly don't believe in a 'god' in the traditional sense of the word..)

Over time as human beings have developed an ongoing discovery of self-awareness, and our consciousness has expanded both collectively (in the form of societies and cultures) and individually, so has our understanding of the relationship between reality and perception changed, and it continues to change.

We as human beings are slowly starting to shift into yet a new level of self-awareness that does not include the the obsolete, negative, and harmful functions of the human ego, which keeps us addicted to our drama, and pain, and negativity. Recent research (some of which can be found in the research section of the Instute of HeartMath's website at www.heartmath.org) indicates that moods, states of mind, and even thoughts that carry measurable energy, that can be read even from a moderately distant proximity.

Based on these understandings, further research has been done to measure the brainwaves of one person while in proximity of another person having a different mental experience than them. One of the persons involved (these experiments were repeated several times with different participants) was asked to maintain a passive, positive focused intention on the other person. After a few moments, the machine used to measure the electromagnetic field of the heart showed a change in the neurological activity between the second person's heart and brain, and a shift in their brainwave patterns.

From this experiment, and many many other CONTROLLED scientific experiments, some of which were conducted by former skeptic, Lynn McTaggart, and explained over the course of several radio interviews, it has been concluded that having a directed, passive intention can actually change people's perception, and affect the physical space around an individual.

So why does this prove that there is a god?

The universe didn't just START. I admit there may be a slight gap in my conclusion based on the above mentioned research, but it wouldn't be overly far-fetched to conclude that the world we live in now is a result of intention. Absolutely everything... EVERYTHING you see around you started off as nothing more than an idea. That idea grew into desire (need-based or otherwise) and that desire developed into intent. Things ARE because we believe them to be so. This is not so different from a lucid dream. Thoughts are physical. Modern day quantum physicists had once concluded that there were four forces of nature- Electro-magnetism, gravity, strong force, and weak force.

However, recently this has begun to come under evaluation, because really, all of those thigns are components of Electro-magnetism. The human heart emits an electromagnetic field. Fact. These neurological changes and pulses can not only be picked up on several types of monitors, but the monitors also verify that these changes affect one's surroundings. Given these facts, and the understanding that the four forces of nature are all really dealings of electro-magnetism, one could conclude that everything we are, see, hear, think, and believe is the substance of what is. Everything that is, is a result of intent. If there was no intention, there would be nothingness.

So as I stated before, the universe didn't just start. There had to be intention. Humans, as far as we know, are the only self-aware beings, and even that occurance is relatively recent, in the scheme of things. Given that flawless logic () there has to have been a god, and god must be a conscious individual with intent.

I don't beleive that the book of Genesis was a metaphor. When God spoke "let there be light," I don't believe it was supposed to be poetic. I think that is the recolection of his intent for there to be light. His thoughts manifested into what is light. And what is light? Nothing more than electromagnetic radiation, a modocum of which can be detected by the human eye. There is so much our physical bodies are not capable of seeing, and if we could, perhaps it would be much more obvious that there is clearly a god.

The interesting part about this is that the bible even states that god created us in image of himself. In that way, as we slowly continue to transcend egoic consciousness, and reach true self-awareness and actualization, we are beginning to realize that reality is shaped by intention, and thus we are all a part of god, and god is a part of us.

Your precious science just proved the existance of god. What do you say to that?

(I tried lol)

Yeah, that was a bit of a fail on my part. I took the opportunity to mock a week strawman argument and the smug attitude that seems to accompany it. In short, a cheap shot and a cop out. Especially compared to O'nus' post, where he did a better job of articulating my thoughts than I can, despite the fact that he apparently doesn't share them. Can't win 'em all...

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Yeah, that was a bit of a fail on my part. I took the opportunity to mock a week strawman argument and the smug attitude that seems to accompany it. In short, a cheap shot and a cop out. Especially compared to O'nus' post, where he did a better job of articulating my thoughts than I can, despite the fact that he apparently doesn't share them. Can't win 'em all...

It's ok, but I'd encourage you to try your best to do some quick research and maybe try and formulate a more serious argument.

Originally Posted by Xei

As myself; I can't think of any argument for God. I mean, I could state some, but they wouldn't really be arguments because they would have logical gaps in, necessarily, as God doesn't exist.

Oh, come on. Lawyers argue stuff they don't believe every day and make a living doing it. Just do the best you possibly can at arguing for the existence of God.

If any of you theists want to debate my arguments for the existence of God, bring it on! Prove to me that God doesn't exist, you believers!

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

It's ok, but I'd encourage you to try your best to do some quick research and maybe try and formulate a more serious argument.

Research what exactly?

Originally Posted by The Enterer

Research what exactly?

Arguments used by atheists, or arguments used against the arguments we've put forward for God.

I find this difficult, because in order to argue on the side of theism, I would have to withhold certain information from my argument and use logical fallacies. I would have to compromise my policy of only arguing what I think to be most logical.

The existence of God or some other supernatural entity, be it personal or not, is highly unlikely.

Mankind has a long history of erroneous beliefs that through the scientific method have slowly been unraveled. While we may not understand everything, we have found time and time again that phenomena once thought inexplicable has a perfectly natural and material explanation.

The aurora borealis for instance is a spectacular natural phenomena. The native Inuit people of the north have a host of superstitious beliefs surrounding this phenomena. However, today, we know that it doesn't serve as some kind of doorway to the spirit realm, but rather is a beautiful effect caused by the interaction of solar radiation and the Earth's magnetic fields.

In addition, the fact that science can't explain everything (yet) is no good argument for the presence of a supernatural entity. I like to refer to Dawkin's "God of the Gap" argument. Theists tend to plug any hole in scientific knowledge with "God." However, as time goes on, scientists inevitably fill in the gaps with solid evidence that has everything to do with the natural world and nothing to do with the supernatural. (This can especially be seen in evolution - over time we keep finding more and more of the so called "missing links," which means slowly closing the loopholes theists can try to use as leverage).

Not to mention there's a very basic problem facing theism; the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So, theists...can you come up with a testable hypothesis for why God exists?

(How was that for a first try? This is kinda fun. )

Originally Posted by OuroborosEterna

The existence of God or some other supernatural entity, be it personal or not, is highly unlikely.

Mankind has a long history of erroneous beliefs that through the scientific method have slowly been unraveled. While we may not understand everything, we have found time and time again that phenomena once thought inexplicable has a perfectly natural and material explanation.

The aurora borealis for instance is a spectacular natural phenomena. The native Inuit people of the north have a host of superstitious beliefs surrounding this phenomena. However, today, we know that it doesn't serve as some kind of doorway to the spirit realm, but rather is a beautiful effect caused by the interaction of solar radiation and the Earth's magnetic fields.

In addition, the fact that science can't explain everything (yet) is no good argument for the presence of a supernatural entity. I like to refer to Dawkin's "God of the Gap" argument. Theists tend to plug any hole in scientific knowledge with "God." However, as time goes on, scientists inevitably fill in the gaps with solid evidence that has everything to do with the natural world and nothing to do with the supernatural. (This can especially be seen in evolution - over time we keep finding more and more of the so called "missing links," which means slowly closing the loopholes theists can try to use as leverage).

Not to mention there's a very basic problem facing theism; the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So, theists...can you come up with a testable hypothesis for why God exists?

(How was that for a first try? This is kinda fun. )

That is a very good, well-thought-out argument. Why don't you actually believe this?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Arguments used by atheists, or arguments used against the arguments we've put forward for God.

No, I don't like my answer because it is just parroting a common argument, not because it isn’t. I would rather put up a convincing argument than try to pass a weak one off with a straight face. That's not making the best case for the oposite pov.

Maybe I've just got the 'rules' twisted or am just over thinking it...

Originally Posted by The Enterer

No, I don't like my answer because it is parroting a common argument, not because it isn’t. I would rather put up a convincing argument than try to pass a weak one off with a straight face. Maybe I've just got the 'rules' twisted or am just over thinking it...

If your original post was the pinnacle of what you're going to contribute it's probably better you stay away.If not feel free, but it's up to you.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

I find this difficult, because in order to argue on the side of theism, I would have to withhold certain information from my argument and use logical fallacies. I would have to compromise my policy of only arguing what I think to be most logical.

You've also proven that you find following a simple direction difficult. Follow the theme of the thread, or don't post.

Originally Posted by Carôsoul

Please don't ruin my fun, if you don't want to be involved, don't post.

Did I miss something? If you aren't going to participate, cool. Keep it to yourself, we don't need an announcement on why you're not participating. We get it. You want attention. Do it elsewhere. Some of us actually want to see where this goes. If you can't follow the guidelines of the OP, then DON'T POST. For the love of... god....

WTF? Lick my nuts. I just said I was going to try to post something better didn't I?

I think I'll debate this argument since it mirrors my view to a large extent...

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is abundantly proven that there is energy within all mass. All matter contains energy.

When considering the big bang and the research done at the LHC, even they must consider the time in which there was no matter to which energy can manifest. There was a time in which there was energy without tangibility.

Without a form of tangibility and mass, this energy is infinite.

Although we obviously do not understand this energy at this time, it is clearly within everything that we know of now.




If we define God as an omnipresent being, then it is energy.

If we define God as omniscient, then it is energy.

We cannot properly attach morality to this energy as we do not know of its consciousness.

However, we can speculate on its morality; the flourishing of the energy.

In this case, the ideal is to be respectful to it. As entropy shows that energy deteriorates over time regardless of our interaction (as of yet) then we are powerless to how we maintain it. In that respect, we must consider that it is ideal that we simply survive as best as we can and equally as we can with others in respect to our lucky time with this God.

At that, God is abundantly clear and true.

What do you think...?

That's all fine, but why do you need to lable the energy as GOD? Does the energy care if you do or don't call it God? Of course not.

It is probably about time to throw the baby out with the bathwater if the human race is going to evolve. To attach this view of the cosmos to the concept of God, just to 'keep God alive' or whatever, just plays into all the foolish superstition that is holding the species back. It’s irresponsible, and anything good that religion does can be done better by secular humanists with out all the other foolishness that goes along with God and Religion. 'God' needs to go away, and you are only part of the problem.



BTW Hey Rainman, that's not my quote in your post, can you fix that?

My vantage point is beyond taking sides so I will just post how both vantage points boil down in my mind's eye.

Words are simply shells to carry meaning.

By no means, do I mean words are meaningless.

They are tools used to capture and express meaning-- a concept which surrounds us with each and every breath and ironically impossible to encapsulate in just one word.

To argue one word over another when the meaning behind that moment they share is inarguably the same, is silly from up here.

Can't you other eyes see it?

The ends justify the means.

In other words, we are the perceiving tendrils of this reality that assign meaning to this eternal moment in whatever form or flavor we see it as.

At base form one declares "God" or "not-God" to that moment.

Essentially, the moment having "Meaning" or being "meaningless".

Seating yourself in "Meaning" is to sit in a state of nakedness before the moment and taking it all in unhindered without judgement or distinction. It's a mindset beyond distinction.

By all means...

Just.

Nice thread Carôusoul, good idea.

And welcome back Cyclic, haven't seen you about much...

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is abundantly proven that there is energy within all mass. All matter contains energy.

When considering the big bang and the research done at the LHC, even they must consider the time in which there was no matter to which energy can manifest. There was a time in which there was energy without tangibility.

Without a form of tangibility and mass, this energy is infinite.

Although we obviously do not understand this energy at this time, it is clearly within everything that we know of now.

If we define God as an omnipresent being, then it is energy.

If we define God as omniscient, then it is energy.

We cannot properly attach morality to this energy as we do not know of its consciousness.

However, we can speculate on its morality; the flourishing of the energy.

In this case, the ideal is to be respectful to it. As entropy shows that energy deteriorates over time regardless of our interaction (as of yet) then we are powerless to how we maintain it. In that respect, we must consider that it is ideal that we simply survive as best as we can and equally as we can with others in respect to our lucky time with this God.

At that, God is abundantly clear and true.

What do you think...?

Very nice.

Spoiler for Somewhat offtopic:

I was thinking something like this today: We cannot seek to understand everything, because the understanding would have to be separate. In truth, everything is non-exclusive. We can only realize everything, knowing that everything is already realized. Everything is already with you, so do you already know it.

It's just so amazing. All I know is that I exist. So what am I asking questions about? It is superbly obvious! Well, that only comes when you're non-attached to the mind and it's on-going noise...

Originally Posted by Xei

This thread didn't work before because the theists actually had no idea what the arguments for atheism were, whilst the atheists knew exactly what the arguments for theism were, which was very interesting. The Enterer is a good example of this. Apparently that's what filters into his brain whenever he hears an argument from an atheist.

I wouldn't generalize about it though. I think we can all still be surprised, brother.

I'll give it a shot:

Electrons are all exactly alike, no exceptions. In a way this homogeneity can also be seen in the 4 fundamental interactions, which repeat themselves, always constant and always true across the universe. Why aren't electrons slightly different from each other? And why aren't the fundamental forces constantly fluctuating and changing throughout space and time?

This exact order, or absence of chaos, suggests the existence of an omnipotent controller. A force that permeates all the universe and imposes the laws and characteristics of matter in an absolute manner, that's God.

(Sorry, Enterer, I didn't mean to call you out on something you didn't say, that post was meant for Black Eagle, and that's been corrected. Sorry again cheers )

Originally Posted by The Enterer

That's all fine, but why do you need to lable the energy as GOD? Does the energy care if you do or don't call it God? Of course not.

There is no need, it is an arbitrary definition of God.

It is probably about time to throw the baby out with the bathwater if the human race is going to evolve. To attach this view of the cosmos to the concept of God, just to 'keep God alive' or whatever, just plays into all the foolish superstition that is holding the species back. It’s irresponsible, and anything good that religion does can be done better by secular humanists with out all the other foolishness that goes along with God and Religion. 'God' needs to go away, and you are only part of the problem.

I professed that, if anything, the morality attached to this God would be the flourishing of energy within us all. Tell me, how is that anti-humanistic?

~

Originally Posted by Rainman

You've also proven that you find following a simple direction difficult. Follow the theme of the thread, or don't post.

Being incapable of following directions and choosing not to follow them are two different things, my friend. Although, because I'm afraid of this post being deleted:


God exists because most people in the world think he exists. How could something so many people believe in be wrong? Case and point, atheists.

*cringes*

I believe in God, but if I was question God's existence I would throw out the argument that comes to mind sometimes...

They say that God is all-knowing, and has already seen everything, but I just cannot get my head around God knowing that people are gonna fail, go to hell and would have been better off not existing. Sure we get the whole "free will" objection, but I find it very hard to see it that way if an outcome has already been decided for everyone.

Religion causes war.