• 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!

My own irrefutable premises to the existence of God.

Pachomius

Member
My very first premise to the existence of God is the following:

Existence is the default status of reality.

This premise is irrefutable.

If you think that it is refutable, then refute it.

Nota bene: No bringing in authorities at all, just talk from your very own personal thinking on truths, facts, logic, and your knowledge of the history of ideas.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
My very first premise to the existence of God is the following:

Existence is the default status of reality.

This premise is irrefutable.

If you think that it is refutable, then refute it.

Nota bene: No bringing in authorities at all, just talk from your very own personal thinking on truths, facts, logic, and your knowledge of the history of ideas.

For clarification, do you simply mean that reality is defined as that which exists? Or that reality couldn't not exist, ie non-existence is impossible?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
No refutation from me since reality is practically the definition of material existence. Just some reservations: we may have different definitions of "existence" and while I can't (or won't) refute your claim, that doesn't mean that your claim is proven. But my guess is that your fallacy lies in other premises or conclusions.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
My very first premise to the existence of God is the following:

Existence is the default status of reality.

This premise is irrefutable.

If you think that it is refutable, then refute it.

Nota bene: No bringing in authorities at all, just talk from your very own personal thinking on truths, facts, logic, and your knowledge of the history of ideas.
Okay. Questionable, at best.

I'd refute it by saying, what is existence? What is reality? Do they even confer the same things? No, they don't. I can have a very real dream that has nothing to do with (conventional) existence. And I can assert the existence of something like courage that has nothing to do with reality.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
A lot of things have the strong appearance that they cease to exist. Such things as memory, and death. Premise 1 is highly questionable.

Even holding that you can't get something from nothing none of us proveably existed before we were born.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
My very first premise to the existence of God is the following:

Existence is the default status of reality.
Boy this is pretty close to being a tautology. What do you see here as the significant difference between the two?

.
 
Last edited:

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
I agree. Anyone who reasons logically has to realize that something cannot come from nothing. It is impossible. It will never happen.

Some who do not believe in a God will put their faith in a "big bang" which states that the universe came into existence from a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago. Ask them to tell you where the singularity came from and they cannot. Science cannot tell you. They may reason it always existed.

And there you go, something has always existed.

Some try and claim the universe has always existed. But because of the red shift in super nova explosions we know that the universe is expanding. This is known as the expanding universe. This leads credence to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning.

But what caused the universe into existence? Certainly not nothing. So we always have to go back to the conclusion that someone or something eternal has always existed.

That Someone is obviously God.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
And an infinite regress of causes would never happen because you need an eternal instantiation to set things in motion. So a never-ending eternal regress is impossible seeing that our universe is in a fleeting stage of development.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I agree. Anyone who reasons logically has to realize that something cannot come from nothing. It is impossible. It will never happen.

Some who do not believe in a God will put their faith in a "big bang" which states that the universe came into existence from a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago. Ask them to tell you where the singularity came from and they cannot. Science cannot tell you. They may reason it always existed.
Kind of like the Norse of old who explained thunder, not on the collapse of air around a lightening bolt, but on god Thor riding his chariot across the sky. When all else fails stick in god as an explanation. :rolleyes:

And just to be clear, I've never heard anyone put their faith in a BB as a substitute for god. And not all cosmologists are wedded to the notion that the BB had to have arisen from an explainable singularity. Just so you know.;)

And there you go, something has always existed.
And why must that something necessarily be god, a sentient supernatural creature?

Some try and claim the universe has always existed. But because of the red shift in super nova explosions we know that the universe is expanding. This is known as the expanding universe. This leads credence to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning.
Not a red shift in supernovae, but the red shift in receding galaxies. :)

But what caused the universe into existence? Certainly not nothing. So we always have to go back to the conclusion that someone or something eternal has always existed.

That Someone is obviously God.
And this cause has to be a who and not a what because? ______________________fill in your answer_____________________________ .

BTW, welcome to RF

Nice to see a new face.

.
 
Last edited:

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
Kind of like the Norse of old who explained thunder, not on the collapse of air around a lightening bolt, but on god Thor riding his chariot across the sky. When all else fails stick in god as an explanation. :rolleyes:

And just to be clear, I've never heard anyone put their faith in a BB as a substitute for god. And not all cosmologists are wedded to the notion that the BB had to have arisen from an uncaused singularity. Just so you know.;)


And why must that something necessarily be god, a sentient supernatural creature?


Not a red shift in supernovae, but the red shift in receding galaxies. :)


And this cause has to be a who and not a what because? ______________________fill in your answer_____________________________ .

BTW, welcome to RF

Nice to see a new face.

.

The red shift is seen in supernovas, which are in other galaxies.

Supernovae, an accelerating universe and the cosmological constant

Thanks for the welcome.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Who is making all concepts?

A human being thinking.

Therefore when you apply that you are rationalising information imagine that you could not think.

Where is the concept then!

If you had to tell a story to science about why science became a male group chosen event that sought to understand the concept of God....which was the stone planet on which he stood, he is still applying the same thinking concept today.

If he did not believe that God came from somewhere else, then he also would not conceptualize God not existing. For if he did, then the stone planet that keeps his human life supported living would have his human life destroyed.

He therefore cannot conceptualize that God came from The Sun, for if he did, he would knowingly claim that body is self consuming, so God would no longer exist.

So then you would ask is there a Destroyer of God?

As what science seeks is to claim rationally I want God removed from its physical form to take from God its spiritual form.

Yet then says to self God the spiritual form is quoted to be my own self.....actually.

Where the information which you are not including in the discussion, SION, which you should be, the Satanist review. To own a condition that can own removal of GOD...yet he says afterwards I still want some power to exist, claiming it is the spirit of God.

So then a scientist would claim, within the mass of God, for he knows that saying something come from nothing is a lie...when he says space, the place is cold radiation mass. Which is what holds the stone Planet that he first named as God in its place, stone.

To have it removed he has to heat up cold radiated space, which he knows about, Satanism, which is by the Sun condition, to bring in extra cold radiation, heat it up so that it changes natural stone gas history, to hold stone in cold gas radiated fusion...at a point to remove it.

And he has to force it upon God.

Now if you said you were God the son inheritor of God the stone, you would claim that you were the Immaculate gas spirit owner as a history. And would only teach that statement after the fact....and not before.

For before the information of the gas heavens as talked about in discussion places those gases with the mountain volcanic eruption, spurting into cold space.

If a human were going to preach false dogma for coercive science reasoning, you would have to try to convince the life of a human that a spirit of God existed, yet you were not the spirit of God that existed, instead you were the sacrificed spirit of God so that you could practice nuclear converting science and claim it owned a meaning to be life attacked.

That sort of human mentality.

As a spiritual human I know that eternal once never owned creation. Spirit memory says that a portion of the mass of eternal was removed into God O bodies that exploded and burnt.

And if a male said he was seeking the eternal then he would still be using his first scientific mind, that was seeking to have self removed out of natural creation as a scientist.
 

Pachomius

Member
Title of the thread:
My own irrefutable premises to the existence of God.
--------------------


My very first premise to the existence of God is the following:

Existence is the default status of reality.

This premise is irrefutable.

If you think that it is refutable, then refute it.

Nota bene: No bringing in authorities at all, just talk from your very own personal thinking on truths, facts, logic, and your knowledge of the history of ideas.

I do not see any refutation of my first premise, namely:

Existence is the default status of reality.

Here is an example of existence and of reality, a baby.

To refute the premise that existence is the default status of reality, you have just to bring up only one example of reality that is not an example of existence, or one example of existence that is not an example of reality.

For my definition of God, here it is:

God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Please concentrate everyone here, on first refuting my first premise, namely:

Existence is the default status of reality.

You see, dear colleagues here, I submit that we have to first work as to concur on the premise, that existence is the default status of realty, when we have concurred on it, then I will present my second premise for people again to concur on with me, or to refute it, okay?

If however, you have a premise that will lead to the non-existence of God, please let me know.

Forgive my repetitiousness, please refute my first premise, "Existence is the default status of reality."
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I do not see any refutation of my first premise, namely:

Existence is the default status of reality.

Here is an example of existence and of reality, a baby.

To refute the premise that existence is the default status of reality, you have just to bring up only one example of reality that is not an example of existence, or one example of existence that is not an example of reality.

For my definition of God, here it is:

God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Please concentrate everyone here, on first refuting my first premise, namely:

Existence is the default status of reality.

You see, dear colleagues here, I submit that we have to first work as to concur on the premise, that existence is the default status of realty, when we have concurred on it, then I will present my second premise for people again to concur on with me, or to refute it, okay?

If however, you have a premise that will lead to the non-existence of God, please let me know.

Forgive my repetitiousness, please refute my first premise, "Existence is the default status of reality."

How about answering my request for clarification: "Boy this is pretty close to being a tautology. What do you see here as the significant difference between the two? The two being existence and reality.

.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I do not see any refutation of my first premise, namely:

Existence is the default status of reality.

Here is an example of existence and of reality, a baby.

To refute the premise that existence is the default status of reality, you have just to bring up only one example of reality that is not an example of existence, or one example of existence that is not an example of reality.
So, as anticipated, we have different definitions of "existence".
For my classification of existence see: 5 Planes of Existence
For an example of existence that is not an example of reality:
Harry Potter.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Existence is the default status of reality.

Unless you have evidence to back up that claim (and o believe there is none) then your premise fails at the first statement.

And evidence is the key, without it all you have is opinion.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I agree. Anyone who reasons logically has to realize that something cannot come from nothing. It is impossible. It will never happen.

One possible explanation of how the universe came from nothing
Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing



Some who do not believe in a God will put their faith in a "big bang" which states that the universe came into existence from a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago. Ask them to tell you where the singularity came from and they cannot. Science cannot tell you. They may reason it always existed.

You misunderstanding of the BB and the meaning of singularity let's you down here.


But what caused the universe into existence? Certainly not nothing. So we always have to go back to the conclusion that someone or something eternal has always existed.

See above. Besides that i know of 28 other hypothesis of how our universe arose. All are either hypothesised from extrapolation of known conditions or are mathematically possible. If they were not possible they would not be construed by mainstream cosmology. And none make the unfounded guess that a god did it.

And that is the thing, no one knows how the BB occured but it is sure that it did not happen by unexplained magic.


That Someone is obviously God.

Major leap of faith.


Welcome to RF.
 
Top