<p>Gosh, tom, is this thread necessary? I realize it’s fun (lol) to debate people on religious matters sometimes, but it usually ends up in a lot of hate. I love intelligent repartees being thrown around as much as you do, but we’re never going to get that here. Nor is this thread going to fish out deep philosophical convictions. Someone earlier mentioned that CC people are generally more wise and clever, but have you seen the people worriedly verifying their 199 (jk, to you guys who did get that…) PSAT scores on here? :)Honestly. It’s not everyone.</p>
<p>The result is going to be people making snide, coarse, and bloodthirsty attacks on each other. And telling each other they’ll burn in hell. Or rot particularly quickly in the ground when they die. Not…sharing advice on college admissions/resume-padding/high-school-life-encouragement. Like, at all. I’m serious.</p>
<p>tomjonesistheman, I think you manage to toss around big ideas without any thought whatsoever. No offense, because you did put alot of time into your post. You seek to disprove the existence of God through logic and whatnot. Alright, then answer this.
Why are humans innately creative? Why can we create something like the Sistine Chapel?
If God does not exist, then why do you? In other words, what was the ultimate cause? Also, you say that if we can accept that God had no creator, then why do we not accept that the universe had no creator. This is a good point, however, the principal flaw is that this universe bars evidence to the fact it was not always here, and that at some point it came into being. Consider the big bang, which ironically is now being used to help “prove” God. All the matter is in a ball. Where did the matter come from? And why can we not create something out of nothing? Something physical needs to have, by its very definition, something to make it physical, or else it would not exist. God, however, is spiritual and not physical, except in specific manifestations (burning bush, Jesus Christ, etc.) Thus, the condition of him requiring a creator does not apply, because he is not necessarily a physical being.
Also, you say God cannot exist because to exist is to have an effect upon another thing that is existing. I, however, call the act of creating something to be influencing that thing. If I paint a depiction of the sun, I have an effect upon that painting by definition, because that thing only exists since I made it.
You also bring up predestination and God’s knowledge of the future. But, is knowing something will happen predetermining this thing to happen? In other words, if I know tomorrow President Obama will give a speech, am I predetermine that thing to happen? NO, I just know it will. Am I taking away his free will? No. He still is choosing. I just happen to know what his choice will be. </p>
<p>Quote: “Even worse: For every prayer said, god has not acted, or else the prayer had been undone. This means that the more people have prayed, the more bad things in the world have persisted. Therefore, the more you pray, the more evil persist (provided god exists and stands above time).” - tomjonesistheman</p>
<p>I don’t follow your line of thought here. By praying to God, and acknowledging that he is God by doing so, we increase the evil of the world? Like, what? Also, how do you know God has not acted on a prayer? I don’t follow this logic. </p>
<p>Please understand I do have respect for you.</p>
<p>And I agree with the guy who posted right above me.</p>
<p>I’m glad this is meant to be a discussion on g/God and not organized religion, but the entire argument relies on the personal God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, rather than a creator in general. I think a much more compelling argument for a creator–as opposed to the idea that he’s this omnipotent being that stands outside of natural laws–is that he’s synonymous with natural laws. (For reference, I’m not religious, though my views on a creator are in progress.) </p>
<p>@ChoklitRain. From what I gather, Einstein was a pantheist, so he believed that the Universe and God were equivalent (like I was talking about in the paragraph above).</p>
<p>Now is a good opportunity for you to elaborate on your ideas!:)</p>
<p>His popularity gradually decreased to the point in which no one was as devoted to the ideas he discussed, right? Then people looked toward the Second Great Awakening in which they called upon God to be sinful towards their enemies, after which the ideas of idealism and romanticism ensued? </p>
<p>^^like Spinoza? I don’t know about heathen philosophy, just the truth of CCism which is proven in real posts, and is therefore true, and the only true religion.</p>
<p>2nd Great Awakening had the “burnt over district” and started at Yale. that’s all I remember. FOr the cool part of 19th C. religious revival, check out John Humphrey Noyes on wikipedia. He was crzay.</p>
<p>Oh, and in regards to the ultimate cause argument (what caused the universe? God. Then what caused God? kind of a thing), I think it’s foolish to argue God in place of an absence of knowledge. That means that every time a new scientific discovery comes along, and a little greater understanding of our universe is assembled, a part of what God is (by your parameters) disappears. It’s more logical to look at God as what is, known and unknown, rather than merely as a marker for filling space. Using god as an explanation for the unknown is an argument a person of extraordinary faith (rather than reason) would use for a god, but this is CC–few people on here, if any, need to cling to a god to explain the “scary” unknown and keep them strong. So I’d prefer to stick to arguments about a creator in general, not what he/she has become by a religious standard.</p>
<p>What if science is the rules God set for humanity ie its how he set up the universe? And if what if there exists a 5th dimension that makes time planar, so God could travel through it? What about multiple universes? We don’t know to make a final judgment in my opinion. Others may disagree.</p>
<p>Hopefully we can get this thread killed soon so that debate doesnt get uglier. I find these kind of debates are for people who respect each other, which is difficult to have on internet forums.</p>
<p>I could not read your whole post, sorry, but i will respond to you title.</p>
<p>You should get different perspectives of what people define as God. Two religions that i’m sure believe in one God are Christinity (somewhat) and Islam. </p>
<p>You can only have faith in God; and with faith comes belief that he exists. </p>
<p>To get on a philosophical level. Defining is a limiting factor, once you label something a knife, you’re automatically telling us what we can and can’t use it for. Existence is based solely on the individual and what he perceives or believes is existence.</p>
<p>I tried to restrain myself from clicking on this… But I couldn’t resist, this is one of the most fun things to debate I know of.</p>
<p>First off, kudos to Gerontius for having the most reasonable argument I’ve seen online so far.</p>
<p>Now, it’s my turn. Note that I am not god. Therefore, the following argument is not guaranteed to be perfect. Also note that my faith is not based on logical deduction, but on the actual experience I have had of Christ’s effect in my life. This is my effort to reduce my faith into scientific terms useful in understanding the world around us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pretty good definition. I’d define god as a being outside of time and space, that was the First Cause for all nature. This is a good working definition for logic. The god I know is more complex, but that is outside the scope of this argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not bad. I agree with Gerontius that the all-inclusive infinity argument doesn’t hold water. As for the existence of god in relation to other things, by definition god is outside natural existence and was the First Cause that all other causes follow from. Interestingly, Christianity solves this problem with the concept of the Trinity, so that in a way god can be said to have existed in relation to himself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your basis for saying that the world is above “time, space, moral, existence”? I would argue that it does not, but rather was created and now exsists within those limits. As far as I can see, that is a base assumption, not something that follows from anything else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing, by definition. But if something did, then that would be god.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? And why so? You can’t decide that by logic, you have to look at the world and consider whether it really seems possible that this is all there is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humans have managed 4000 years of amazing innovation while assuming the existence of god. As far as I see there’s no difference in usefulness between assuming that there is a god who normally works in consistent patterns, and assuming that the patterns exist in their own right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only reason those things are impossible is that god created the universe to follow those patterns. If He chooses not to break His rules, I see no inconsistency.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Naturally, if you define that nothing is possible outside of the laws of physics, then you will conclude that nothing is possible outside the laws of physics. But it’s that definition that is in question here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Infinity is a useful term, despite our inability to measure it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>to this I have not the answer. It seems to me that weight and strength are irrelevant for a being that exists outside of the time-space system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again you define god as limited by the natural system He made, and then conclude that He must not have made it. If a being exists outside of time-space, then to that being all events are equally now at all times.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>God knows what you will do tomorrow, because for Him tomorrow is just as much now as today. But that doesn’t mean you have no free will. Just because He can see every choice you ever made and ever will make as Now doesn’t mean you didn’t make those choices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again you have disguised a definition as a deduction. If your definition of existence is "existing at a definable point within space-time, then naturally the source of space-time doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is true that god has already acted in response to prayers before they are made, in the sense that His action in response took place a point in time before the point at which the prayer exists. Since the time of the prayer and the time of the action are equally present to Him, there is no question of cause and effect looping.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I pray that the people of Hati will recover from the earthquake, and they do, that would not have prevented me from praying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Naturally a person who prays and then refuses to take action is of little use. But I will continue to pray nonetheless.</p>
<p>Thanks for reading through all this. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to post.</p>
Heaven?</p>