God's Existence

[omega2xx]

The evidence is that you have nothing to prove otherwise, proof by exhaustion backs my statement

You said it is a myth. I ask you to prove it. This is not about what I believe, it is about what you said, and of course you can't prove it.

I admit I can't prove God exists, but you will not admit you can't prove He doesn't. Why not?

 

[omega2xx]

Mutations are rare because they are part of a self-replicating mechanism that has gone through quite a lot of interactions already.

They are not part of a self-replicating mechanism and anyone with a modicum of knowledge of biology would know that.

 

[LuisDantas]

They are not part of a self-replicating mechanism and anyone with a modicum of knowledge of biology would know that.

What do you understand by "biology"? How would you describe reproduction?

 

[Windwalker]

Exactly. The uselessness of your answer reveals the uselessness of the question. Yet your answer is no worse, and can be no worse, than any other.

I wouldn't exactly call it useless. It's rather more to the point. To try to make an intellectual argument for why I 'feel' something misses the point. I 'feel' God exists, because I 'feel', not think. It's like asking someone why do you 'feel' your breaths exist. I've always been bewildered by referring to God as a 'concept.'

God is the universe. By definition of "uni", there can be nothing outside the universe. Not even empty space. So everything is in the universe, in God. As we are in God, we naturally become saturated with the divine presence.

We are, however we might not see or feel that because of our preoccupations with our little constructed universes in our minds. So when I say I 'feel' God, that's very literal. It's just simply a matter of breathing the air that's always there, and recognizing it as air, as opposed to taking it for granted and ignoring your breaths, or God. It's amazing when we stop and pay attention to such things, like breath, or in the case of God our very being itself, how alive we feel.

Certainly this God can penetrate us and everything else, so separation between the whole and a part is impossible. Remember, Isaiah said everything is from God,

Or as the Apostle Paul said quoting the Greeks, "In Him we live and move and have our being."

 

[YmirGF]

I've always been bewildered by referring to God as a 'concept.'

I hear ya, @Windwalker

I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of human animals forget that god is an idea, first and foremost. The second problem is that by calling it an idea the vast majority of human animals will likely assume that therefore minimizes god, as "It's just an idea." My own take on this is that the vast majority of human animals neither understand the inherent power of ideas or their resulting effects on personal reality.

 

[FearGod]

Mutations are rare because they are part of a self-replicating mechanism that has gone through quite a lot of interactions already.

It is a logical, necessary consequence of the very reality of the situation, as would be readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of experience with mathematics, biology or engineering.

Do you mean that mutations weren't rare before and after going through a lot of interactions
mutations become rare today?

These are rather vague terms. In any case, the most nocive mutations, naturally, tend to harm the organism to such an extent that it fails to survive and therefore aren't passed along to further generations. There are exceptions.

Examples please for species that recently failed due to mutations and natural selection.

I have no idea what you mean by "out of control". What would the control even be in this context?

I mean continues mutations going out of control, was the mechanism of self fixing being planned or just happened to be so and then passed to the next generations?

Are they?

If not controlled then your nose will by near your anus, do you think there were some species
who got their noses beside their anuses then they failed to survive or it was always that the nose close to the mouth.

What would inanimate nature be? Is it any different from just plain nature? If so, in which ways?

Inanimate means no mathematics, no science, no plans, no design .....etc
and that what you believe in.

Your question seems to be an attempt at a request for an explanation of natural selection, but it seems half-formed, what with the assumptions that there is a place or need for "fixing" and "plans".

I didn't mention natural selection, I know it's the stupid escape for denying God,
as for the species to survive it has first to success and you believe such success was
due to beneficial random mutations, if there were no random beneficial mutations
then how a better fitter species can come to existence?

It may easily be the only rational answer, yes.

So you believe it's all about luck.

 

[Polymath257]

I see a question here. There is no meaning in it until at least two people can agree on what they mean by god. I am not here to assume what the questioner means, or to define the words he uses myself. So - and I realise I might be defeating the intentions of the questioner, which are not necessarily to get a useful answer, but just to provoke an argument... please define what you mean by god. Does this god have a name?

I agree! It is possible to say 'God is the universe'. If you do that, then I will be happy to say that God exists. But also, I would question whether identifying God with the universe is a reasonable way to use the word 'God'.

It is possible to imagine a society of high dimensional beings that produce universes like our as pieces of art. If a high school student in such a society produced our universe as an art project and subsequently forgot about it, would we call that student 'God'? Again, the word could be used, but somehow it seems inappropriate.

This is part of why I tend towards ignosticism or theological noncognitivism.
Ignosticism - Wikipedia
Theological noncognitivism - Wikipedia

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I feel that God does not exist.

How many times have people claimed something they saw was a werewolf, a sea serpent, a vampire in the past? And now we dismiss those claims because we have been most places on the Earth, have documented the creatures that exist here, have communicated such knowledge to one another. A child no longer sees the tail of a whale emerge from the ocean and fearfully yell "sea serpent!"... instead they gleefully yell "whale!"

How many people were sure there were fairies, gremlins, witches? How many of those people ended up being correct?

How much more evidence is there for God than there is for any of the things above? In fact, I would argue there is MORE evidence for something like "sea serpents" - at least the people claiming to have seen them actually saw something. With God you never, ever, EVER have anything to go on but hearsay. EVER. You can't "go and see for yourself." You can't find whatever it is the person witnessing/talking to you supposedly found. How is it so easy to dismiss someone's claims that they saw a werewolf, and yet so difficult to dismiss someone's claims that they see/speak-to God?

 

[David T]

Does existence exists? question.

 

[FearGod]

I feel that God does not exist.

How many times have people claimed something they saw was a werewolf, a sea serpent, a vampire in the past? And now we dismiss those claims because we have been most places on the Earth, have documented the creatures that exist here, have communicated such knowledge to one another. A child no longer sees the tail of a whale emerge from the ocean and fearfully yell "sea serpent!"... instead they gleefully yell "whale!"

How many people were sure there were fairies, gremlins, witches? How many of those people ended up being correct?

How much more evidence is there for God than there is for any of the things above? In fact, I would argue there is MORE evidence for something like "sea serpents" - at least the people claiming to have seen them actually saw something. With God you never, ever, EVER have anything to go on but hearsay. EVER. You can't "go and see for yourself." You can't find whatever it is the person witnessing/talking to you supposedly found. How is it so easy to dismiss someone's claims that they saw a werewolf, and yet so difficult to dismiss someone's claims that they see/speak-to God?

You're one of many who disbelieve for one reason or another

When Our signs are recited to him, he says, 'Fairy-tales of the ancients!'(68:15)

 

[ChristineM]

You said it is a myth. I ask you to prove it. This is not about what I believe, it is about what you said, and of course you can't prove it.

I admit I can't prove God exists, but you will not admit you can't prove He doesn't. Why not?

Proof by exhaustion, as i have presented to you previously, is enough. Not my problem if you refutes to accept evidence.

E=MC2, as i have presented to you previously, is enough. Not my problem if you refutes to accept evidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You're one of many who disbelieve for one reason or another

When Our signs are recited to him, he says, 'Fairy-tales of the ancients!'(68:15)

To be honest, what I posted is not (by far) the only reason.

 

[Windwalker]

I hear ya, @Windwalker

I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of human animals forget that god is an idea, first and foremost. The second problem is that by calling it an idea the vast majority of human animals will likely assume that therefore minimizes god, as "It's just an idea."

I like the quote I found that I put in my signature line. "A mystic is not one who sees God as an object, but is immersed in God as an atmosphere." I think that captures it exactly. As far as God as an idea, I see that more as an archetype. An archetype is beyond conceptualization. It is a symbol of our highest Self, and when a symbol is realized in fulfilled experience it becomes a point of reference, a sign in other words. You say "God" and it points to "This" (*motions to the whole of reality - I gotta have some word for That. )

My own take on this is that the vast majority of human animals neither understand the inherent power of ideas or their resulting effects on personal reality.

Most people have no idea how symbols operate on them. They have no idea that symbols are higher and more powerful that simple referents. Me being a big fan of understanding developmental stages, particularly Fowler's stages of faith, at the early stages (synthetic-conventional and earlier), the meaning of the symbol and the symbol itself are completely fused. If they see someone does not share their symbol, the assumption is they therefore lack the meaning too (though they could never articulate it in those words). Religious wars are really nothing more than one culture assuming the other lacks the good truth and values of their own, because they don't have their "Christ" or their "Allah", as symbols. So they fear and attack them as threats to their cohesive truths that bind themselves together culturally.

It's only in the later stages someone is able to see that the same meaning can be found in other symbols. They effectively are able to 'decouple' the literal understanding of the symbol from the meaning and therefore understand the symbol as a symbol. It's here where things like the perennial philosophy begin to emerge, where we can see that "Many paths lead from the foot of the mountain, but at the peak we all gaze at the single bright moon.," as my other signature line quotes.

It's those who can't, that say things like you mentioned, "You mean to tell me Jesus is 'just a symbol'!" In their minds, to examine Jesus as a symbol, removes the meaning of it. The meaning is completely fused with it, inseparable, and to recognize it as a symbol divorces the meaning from it - for them, and threatens the meaning they hold within it. They literally cannot see the meaning existing apart from the object of their faith that carries it for them. It does not register at that level yet for them. It is literally a shift in how one processes the world of meaning that has to happen first. The same, or even deeper meaning still exists at the higher levels, but they are no longer dependent on the objects of faith remaining as they once did for them as the sole conveyors of truth and meaning they once were.

Interesting, huh?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you mean that mutations weren't rare before and after going through a lot of interactions mutations become rare today?

That is the general idea, yes, although I don't think it took necessarily very many for the depuration to settle in, nor are mutations exactly rare today either.

Examples please for species that recently failed due to mutations and natural selection.

That is a very basic question, and since you have been discussing the matter for so long, I don't think it is a very proper question at this stage. How else do you think they fail? Or are you proposing that somehow they do not?

I mean continues mutations going out of control, was the mechanism of self fixing being planned or just happened to be so and then passed to the next generations?

There is no evidence of planning, so of course I don' t think there was any planning.

Still not sure what you mean by "out of control", though.

"Just happened to be so and was then passed to the next generation" is indeed the rough description of how speciation occurs. And we know for a fact that it does occur.

If not controlled then your nose will by near your anus,

It well might have. It was luck of the draw that it did not.

do you think there were some species who got their noses beside their anuses then they failed to survive or it was always that the nose close to the mouth.

Why do you think they would fail?

Inanimate means no mathematics, no science, no plans, no design .....etc
and that what you believe in.

Mathematics exist. Depending on how you describe it, it is either a human creation or an inherent property of existence.

Science also exists. Nature is not exempt from it nor from mathematics, quite on the contrary.

So by your description inanimate nature is literally not something that can be found in reality.

I didn't mention natural selection, I know it's the stupid escape for denying God,

No, @FearGod , you got that backwards.

It is the appeal to God that is a stupid and foolish attempt to deny the reality of natural selection.

To their credit, quite a few Christians (and, I assume, less militant Muslims) are enlightened and reasonable enough not to commit that mistake.

It is well past time for their doctrines to learn better than to insist on teaching obvious, known falsehoods.

as for the species to survive it has first to success and you believe such success was
due to beneficial random mutations, if there were no random beneficial mutations
then how a better fitter species can come to existence?

By deliberate, artificial mutations, perhaps. But beneficial random mutations do exist and do in fact play a determinant factor in the development of species.

So you believe it's all about luck.

No, there is natural selection as well.

 

[Nakosis]

if i say that i feel that god is goodness as there can be a possibility of someone who is always good all the time then i will term that as god. do u feel that someone might exists who is good all the time ?
then this fact that god is goodness is that also coming from subconscious mind u feel?

Good for me is a matter of relativity. What is good for me may not be good for you. If I choose to do good it is what I see as good. You, or someone else could see that as bad.

You defined God as good. Some define God as bad or something else they feel God should be defined as. Why should God be defined as good? Maybe simply because that's how you feel God should be defined? Feelings are giving by your subconscious mind.

 

[slave_of_god]

do you feel god exists? why do u feel that god exists?
or
do u feel that god does not exist? why do u feel that god does not exist?

Yes I believe God exists.
Belief as in I accept, I am convinced, I trust, I have faith, I recognize, I acknowledge.
And not the fairytale belief definition as understood by most Atheists.

Go to EFdawah channel on YouTube and in it are various videos of Muslims conversing with Agnostics/Atheists about the irrationality of Atheism.

Come back to me with any questions about these conversations and we can discuss further.

There are rational reasons for my belief that do not requires a proof. Not every fact requires an empirical evidence for it to be true. For instance I believe my mom is my mom not because I have a DNA test certificate at my home, but because of other epistemological sources of knowledge such as valid testimony.

 

[sadi_sm]

do you feel god exists? why do u feel that god exists?
or
do u feel that god does not exist? why do u feel that god does not exist?

I. GOD EXISTS

1) KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (KCA)

P1: Everything that begins to exist necessarily has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe necessarily has a cause.

P1:

Nothing comes into existence from nothing without a cause. It is completely unreasonable & nonsense to claim otherwise.

P2:

1. It is well-known that the Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe has a beginning.

2. The laws of thermodynamics suggest that the universe has a beginning.

According to laws of thermodynamics, heat always transfers from hotter regions towards cooler regions until all regions have the same temperature. Since there are regions that are cooler than other regions, like stars & galaxies, then the universe didn’t exist for sufficient time for all regions to have the same temperature. Therefore, the universe is not eternal, i.e., it has a beginning.[1]

C:

Since P1 & P2 are true, then it necessary follows that the universe has a cause.

2) FINE TUNING & DESIGN ARGUMENT

P1: Precise compatibilities between two things imply a common design.
P2: A design requires a common intelligent designer.
P3: Millions of things/events in the universe are precisely compatible with each other (directly or indirectly).
C: There necessarily exists a common intelligent designer (follows from 1, 2, & 3).

P1:

E.g., precise compatibility of each part of a mechanical watch imply that they are designed as such. It is impossible that those parts were arbitrarily & coincidentally made due to insignificant probability of such an event. Even if each part was DESIGNED by a different individual that was unaware of what others were doing, it would still be impossible that those parts were compatible with each other to make a working watch. Therefore, precise compatibility of different things with each other imply a common design.

P2:

Nothing designed, e.g., parts of a mechanical watch, can be without a common intelligent designer. By causality principle nothing can be without a cause. & nothing that has precise compatibilities with some other things (i.e., designed) can be the result of blind coincidences, chances or chaos. Is it at all possible that tens, hundreds, or even millions of precise compatibilities were the result of blind coincidences, chances or chaos? How?

P3:

Everything in the universe, including the laws & constants, esp. cosmological constant, are finely tuned & are very compatible with each other to make the current universe & life possible to exist. If they were slightly different, then it wouldn’t be possible for the current universe & life to exist. Everything being so compatible with each other from among billions of other possibilities each with comparable probabilities imply that they are not the result of coincidences or chances.

For example, imagine only some events after sun’s formation:

-formation of Earth,
-Earth having a particular magnetic field,
-Earth’s distance from the sun,
-its mass & orbit & orbital speed,
-Earth’s rotational speed & inclination of its rotational axis,
-formation of the moon,
-formation of atmosphere,
-etc.

All of these could be completely differently. But if ANY of them was slightly different, then there wouldn’t be these many life-forms on Earth.

Even the living things are precisely compatible & dependent on each other (directly or indirectly). For example, the existence of almost all living things has precise dependencies on atmospheric properties. The current atmospheric properties have precise dependencies on phytoplanktons’ characteristics, abundance etc.[2][3] So, almost all living things’ existence indirectly depends on phytoplanktons…

Is it possible that all of these precise compatibility of these events & beings were the results of blind coincidences, chances & chaos? One has to “turn-off” his/her mind & logic to be able to accept such a claim.

Billions of such things/events are already examined & precise compatibility are observed such as those mentioned above.

C:

Since P1, P2 & P3 are shown to be true then, by deduction, it follows that there necessarily exists a common intelligent designer. We call this common intelligent designer as God.

II. GOD (from KCA & DESIGN above) IS;

1) UNCAUSED

Think about beginning (to exist) of the universe. There necessarily exists a cause (C1) for its beginning. There necessarily exists another cause (C2) for C1. … There necessarily exists another cause (Ci) for C(i-1). There are only two options (it is either (a) finite or (b) infinite) for this chain of causes:

a) This chain stops in Ci if and only if (iff) Ci doesn’t need another cause to exist, i.e., iff Ci is uncaused.

b) Otherwise this chain goes to (actual) infinity.

i)
In P2 of KCA argument (I.1.P2) above we showed that the universe has a beginning, i.e., has an initial cause. In other words, the chain of causes of universe stops at a point (somewhere around Big Bang). Since this is the case, then there exists an uncaused cause (doesn't require any cause for its own existence) for the universe.

ii)
If we show that option (b) is impossible, then option (a) is necessarily true.

Let's assume that option (b) is the case. This means that there is a chain of total of infinite causes (Inf.(T)) before our universe begins, i.e., it goes "back" forever & never reaches a beginning point.

Since infinity = infinity/2 + infinity/2 & infinity/2 = infinity, then imagine a point that separates the chain of causes of our universe into two parts where there are infinite number of causes between this point & our universe (Inf. (1)) & the rest of infinite number of causes before this point (Inf.(2)). So, we have

Inf. (T) = Inf. (1) + Inf. (2).

There are still infinitely many causes prior to this point & infinitely many causes after this point until the beginning of our universe.

Since such a point must exist if the chain of causes of universe was infinite, then from this point on our universe waited for infinitely many causes (Inf. (1)) to happen before it began to exist.

What does "waiting for infinitely many causes to happen" mean? It means, the universe waits forever, i.e., hasn't come into existence yet, according to this point.

If the chain of causes was infinite, then such a point existed. And according to such a point, our universe hasn't come into existence. Since our universe has come into existence, then such a point doesn't exist. Hence, the chain of causes of universe is not infinite.

This (i.e., option b above) is a clear contradiction to reality... since our universe DOES exist.

Therefore, option b is not the case!!!

=> Since option b is impossible, then option a must be true.

Since option a is true, then there necessarily exists a cause Ci which has no beginning / is uncaused.

1. Since the universe has a beginning, then it necessarily has a cause.

2. If the cause of our universe began to exist, then it necessarily has another cause. Similarly, that cause has another cause etc..

3. Since the chain of causes in (2) cannot go to infinity, as shown above, then there is necessarily a beginning of those causes, i.e., there necessarily exists an initial cause (Ci) which hasn't began to exist, i.e., doesn't have a beginning, i.e., always existed, i.e., is eternal, i.e., is uncaused (i.e., Ci in option a).

We call/name/define this uncaused initial cause as God. If one asks what caused God to exist, then the answer is that He is necessarily UNCAUSED, as demonstrated above.

Further clarification

Imagine a moving train with 80 wagons.

- Since 80th wagon is moving, then what is pulling it (pulling is the type of cause in this case)?

- 79th wagon!

- What about 79th wagon?

- 78th wagon!

…

- What about 1st wagon?

- Locomotive!

- What is pulling the locomotive?

- What?! The locomotive doesn’t need to be pulled by something else in order to move. It is able to move without being pulled (unlike other wagons it has an engine).

If there are moving wagons (i.e., a train), then there necessarily exists something that, unlike other wagons, doesn’t need ANYTHING ELSE to pull it & it has the ability to move itself & all other wagons, i.e., locomotive. It is so, because infinite number of moving wagons, each of which requires something else to pull it, is physically impossible & logically absurd.

Similarly, for an existing universe (including all causes until the initial cause), where everything in it has a beginning, there necessarily exists an uncaused initial cause that has the ability to create something from nothing. We call this uncaused initial cause as the Creator of the universe or the God.

2) THE CREATOR

Since He is the cause of the universe’s coming into existence, then He is the Creator of the universe, by definition.[4]

3) THE RULER

There are laws in the universe (laws of nature/physics) that everything obeys them, i.e., they are ruling the universe. These laws are created within the universe & are a part of it. Since they are a part of the universe, then they must be created by the same cause we deduced from Design & KCA. Then, we conclude that this cause is constantly ruling the universe through these laws of the universe.

Therefore, consequently, God is the Ruler of the universe.


REFERENCES

[1] Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia
[2] Phytoplankton
[3] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Phytoplankton
[4] the definition of create

SOURCE:
From my DDO Debates
Debate: Does God Exist | Debate.org

 

[omega2xx]

What do you understand by "biology"?

Just some of the basics. What do you understand about it?

How would you describe reproduction?

"After their kind." How do you understand it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Just some of the basics. What do you understand about it?

"After their kind." How do you understand it?

Time to go back to the basics. For the first time, I would wager.

 

[omega2xx]

Proof by exhaustion, as i have presented to you previously, is enough.

Exhaustion is not proof of anything . That is a lame excuse for not wanting to admit you have no evidence to prove God doe snot exist.

Not my problem if you refutes to accept evidence.

It is impossible to prove God does exist or that He does not. You are only blowing smoke, with your "proof by exhaustion," not presenting evidence.

[/QUOTE]E=MC2, as i have presented to you previously, is enough. Not my problem if you refutes to accept evidence.[/QUOTE]

If you think a formula can prove God does not exist, the smoke is getting thicker.