Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sigh.
No lol. As I recall, there are two main scientific theories claiming the start or lack-thereof of the universe. One says the universe never began to exist but has always existed, continually repeating its cycle. To be honest, no one really knows. Right
?I addressed this above. I'll mention this at the end and try summarise what needs to be done
It's probably a good idea. Even a sound argument may not have any relevance of reality if it's based off fiction. For instance, I could make a sound argument about hobbits from The Lords of the Rings.
SETI hasn't found god either
I don't think there is any evidence for god, neither is there evidence for intelligent aliens. However, we do have verifiable empirical evidence for sentient life and technology improving. Therefore, it's possible aliens exist. I'm not going to say god(s) don't exist but there's certainly lack of empirical evidence. I suppose, the best you could come up with is stuff like intelligent design, and so on, which all have many flaws.
It's not really necessary. All I really need, from you, is an admittance that it's possible technologically advance aliens exist. If you can't admit this, why?
If some supremely powerful being appeared in front of me, of course I would. However, I'd need to go through some stages. First, I'd need to check if I'm not delusional. Second, I'd want a few demonstrations of this beings power. Third, I'd need to confirm with this entity which deity it belongs to if it belongs to any.
? I don't have this hope or inclination. If a god appeared in front of me, I'd ask this entity rather than assume.I'm not sure why your focus is on scholars. The most reliable method of examining reality is science and that has not found god nor aliens. Therefore, we can't use science to claim god or aliens exist or don't exist. See my point? You are using, I assume, religion to prove the existence of god(faith based), anecdotes, and I assume some philosophical(outdated and widely criticised) arguments. The evidence for aliens is the infinite amount of planets, some of which may be possible for life to develop. Actual examples of technology and sentient life and anecdotes. Bleh
To be honest, I don't even need to go down this alien route; there are so many sci-fi ideas. I could even talk about a powerful entity just not your god.Okay, so I'm going to sum up what you need to do if you don't want to respond to the above and I think it's important to have some clear idea of what's going on. I'll also explain where I plan to go with this.
Sigh.
This is the most widely used cosmological argument - the Kalam cosmological argument. There's no god inserted here.
The reason why is because the others, as I recall, face the problem of god's existence if you put him there. So, if you want to examine those, sure, but copy/paste which syllogism you want to examine.
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
- The universe began to exist;
Therefore:- The universe has a cause.
[...] As I recall, there are two main scientific theories claiming the start or lack-thereof of the universe. One says the universe never began to exist but has always existed, continually repeating its cycle. To be honest, no one really knows. Right
SETI hasn't found god either
If some supremely powerful being appeared in front of me, of course I would. However, I'd need to go through some stages. First, I'd need to check if I'm not delusional. Second, I'd want a few demonstrations of this beings power. Third, I'd need to confirm with this entity which deity it belongs to if it belongs to any.
I can tell when you say God, you want it to be your God, don't you
I'm not sure why your focus is on scholars. The most reliable method of examining reality is science and that has not found god nor aliens. Therefore, we can't use science to claim god or aliens exist or don't exist. See my point? You are using, I assume, religion to prove the existence of god(faith based), anecdotes, and I assume some philosophical(outdated and widely criticised) arguments. The evidence for aliens is the infinite amount of planets, some of which may be possible for life to develop. Actual examples of technology and sentient life and anecdotes. Bleh
Okay, so I'm going to sum up what you need to do if you don't want to respond to the above and I think it's important to have some clear idea of what's going on. I'll also explain where I plan to go with this.
You need to demonstrate
(a) someone reviving from a biologically dead state for 3 days is necessarily a supernatural phenomenon
(b) Once the supernatural is necessarily the case, you need to demonstrate necessarily why it's a supernatural deity, not some supernatural powerful entity or an unguided supernatural phenomenon.
(c) Once you demonstrate it's a deity, you need to demonstrate necessarily why it's your deity, if you want to.
you may not need to necessarily demonstrate a god exists if you can get to these, but it's probably needed. I have no idea how you can demonstrate any of this other than just asserting it, lol, which is not demonstrating.
You can demonstrate this a few ways. You can either use deductive arguments or science. Good luck
Lol! Anyway, I'm not convinced that inserting "necessarily" is, well, necessary. As long as the evidence is sufficient, we don't need 100% necessity.)
I'm going to mention this one first because I think it's more relevant to the first premise. No, science doesn't work like this at all. In the scientific method, you give evidence for a theory with evidence not by assumptions. The theory becomes substantiated with what we know, not what we don't know. This is a complete misunderstanding of how science works.
Yes, I know. When you're talking about validity, you say premise. When you're talking about the truthfulness of the premise, you say proposition. I can still make a sound syllogisms for Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings.
It may be self evident for you, but not for me. There are some problems with this proposition. The first proposition seems to be conflating cause as in we see cause and effect and things popping into existence. I suppose we could examine it further but your reluctance to even want to examine the first proposition makes me wonder if there's even a point continuing this discussion.
Just because something appears to be fine tuned does not mean it is. We don't have another universe to compare it to.
Now you're starting to get it
This answer might shock you, but because you're so involved you may have not considered it. I don't know. Oh wow, look at that. Have you considered this answer? You need Jesus to exist don't you? Without this concept, how many years of your life is wasted and can you comprehend a life where heaven doesn't exist? There's a conflict of interest here, my friend.
This is quite different from the question you asked before. This is hearsay and there's no evidence required here. Neither, it seems, have you considered alternatives to this.
Yes, I'd believe what he can demonstrate, not anything else. As you know, just because one thing is true does not make another thing true unless they logically follow.
If you want to use a deductive argument, it needs to be 100% necessary. NO other possibilitiesWell, since I'm using arguments for God, maybe I don't have to answer these?
Nope. If someone died and revived that science can't explain it doesn't necessarily make it supernatural, unless you've explored all natural possible scenarios. Since we are leaving the realm of science, we can claim almost anything has equal explanatory power.
Assuming it was a deity, here you explain you have no evidence other than circular reasoning that it was your deityRegarding (b), I extend my arguments for God. Someone outside the Universe not only had the power to create the Universe but did it in a finely tuned manner such that the complex conditions for life are met. If this isn't Deity, what would be? And (c) asks which Deity it is; is it the God of deism, of Judeo-Christianity, of Islam, etc.? Well, the Christ, the Messiah, was the one who was raised from the dead. Why then couldn't it be His Deity, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Col. 1:3, NKJV) who raised Him from the dead (Acts 17:30-31)? (Of course, Jesus [also known as "the Word"] Himself is said to be God [e.g., John 1:1], but that's a different discussion.
Belief in God would re-emerge immediately because the subjective experience of conscious demands belief in a spiritual realm. Science only demonstrates that consciousness is tightly coupled with brain function. There is no natural law called consciousness and no quantum field called consciousness. Merely calling consciousness an emergent property, or a process of brain activity; these statements say nothing about the subjective experience of consciousness.
This may be true, but I don’t think we’d find the same deities people believe in today. A deity would have to show up to do this wondrous act
