• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is this Proof of Lord?

blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
the child realizes that such a being must know about his existence.
Click to expand...
Unevidenced assumption, you can't just assume the existence of a deity in your argument for a deity, this is a begging the question fallacy.

questfortruth said:
because the higher being knows infinitely more than the child,
Click to expand...

Another unevidenced assumption and of course the same type of informal fallacy as above.

questfortruth said:
The All-knowing Being is also the Absolute Truth.
Click to expand...

You are just lining unevidenced assumptions up in tandem, same as you do every time you post. Something is either true to it is not, the word absolute here is redundant hyperbole.

questfortruth said:
All-knowing being must know about own existence,
Click to expand...

The same unevidenced assumption again, there is no must here, you have yet to offer a shred of objective evidence, or rational argument to support the existence of such a deity.
questfortruth said:
the Existence of God is the Absolute Truth.
Click to expand...

You end with the same unevidenced claim you have used throughout, it is meaningless.
 
KWED

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
questfortruth said:
"Do not listen to advice, and even this." Socrates.
Click to expand...
9ca624e37454ad2555d47e43b430c5ab.jpg
 
Bathos Logos

Bathos Logos

Active Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Well, that is not unique to religion. If we define the universe as natural, then it is an objective fact, that the universe is natural. ;)
Click to expand...
At least we'd be defining something that has demonstrable existence. That's quite a step up from most versions of "God" that people attempt to define.

Related to that, some people attempt to define God as something that we already have other words for and is known to exist in an objective way, and your statement here is more relatable to that type of definition - just a reframing of something we know to exist as a shared item of experience/reality. Like someone who states that "God is nature, therefore it is an objective fact that God exists, because nature exists".

Last point - we could define the universe as "gobbldegookish", and then state that it is an objective face that the universe is "gobbledegookish" because we created that word, and it's definition matches some aspect of the universe that this word applies to. But guess what? The universe still exists (again, demonstrably), regardless what adjectives we use to describe it or what other monikers we choose to apply to it. God isn't nearly analogous to this. Not even close.
 
Bathos Logos

Bathos Logos

Active Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
So it is a part of the world, that some people have a belief, they call God?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. And what does that belief amount to, in your estimation? Are you trying to argue against the idea that God may not exist in this world/universe/realm? Are you trying to merely state that God may exist, just as He may not? All I have said thus far is that God may not exist, and the implication related to this thread is that people attempting to define Him into existence are not accomplishing anything. And yet here you are, arguing against me. What is it you are arguing for? Remember that I haven't stated that "God does not exist". Only that we can't know His existence is part of reality based on these definitions alone. We have more than definitions to point to in support of what we call "the universe". We do not have "more" for God. Do you disagree? Do you feel (as your latest replies seem to imply) that believers in the thing are enough to conclude that the thing exists, or that its existence becomes more plausible?
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Bathos Logos said:
Yes, it is. And what does that belief amount to, in your estimation? Are you trying to argue against the idea that God may not exist in this world/universe/realm? Are you trying to merely state that God may exist, just as He may not? All I have said thus far is that God may not exist, and the implication related to this thread is that people attempting to define Him into existence are not accomplishing anything. And yet here you are, arguing against me. What is it you are arguing for? Remember that I haven't stated that "God does not exist". Only that we can't know His existence is part of reality based on these definitions alone. We have more than definitions to point to in support of what we call "the universe". We do not have "more" for God. Do you disagree? Do you feel (as your latest replies seem to imply) that believers in the thing are enough to conclude that the thing exists, or that its existence becomes more plausible?
Click to expand...

If that is all as to the word "God" and the believers in that idea, then we are done. We agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top