what kind of God?

[Unveiled Artist]

It can't. That's my point.

Blame the internet.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you’re not willing to defend your assumption of God?

Just did.
Others accept it as "rational." So does scientific observation, that original complex, functional structures require intelligence as their source.

Have you seen a cell, or functional atomic structures, arise from nothing? I haven't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just did.

I don’t doubt you think so.

Others accept it as "rational." So does scientific observation, that original complex, functional structures require intelligence as their source.

Have you seen a cell, or functional atomic structures, arise from nothing? I haven't.

So to get this straight: the best reason you have to believe in God is that you can’t see any other way that the universe we have could come to exist? Do I understand you correctly?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don’t doubt you think so.


So to get this straight: the best reason you have to believe in God is that you can’t see any other way that the universe we have could come to exist? Do I understand you correctly?

No, it isn't. But it's the most obvious....it's everywhere around you.

I was taking exception to your use of the adjective, "rational". As if your reasons, were.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it isn't. But it's the most obvious....it's everywhere around you.

So it is your argument, though not necessarily your best one. Fair enough.

Your argument is irrational:

- it’s an example of argument from ignorance or argument from incredulity: “I can’t see how X could be false, therefore X must be true.”

- you violate your own premises: “a sentient being can’t come from nothing, so the whole universe must have come from a sentient being that came from nothing.”

I was taking exception to your use of the adjective, "rational". As if your reasons, were.

Take exception all you like; it won’t make my assessment wrong. To reach the conclusion that God exists rationally, you would need to point to valid evidence for God.

“I can’t see how we could exist without God” is not valid evidence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

atheists, what kind of God do you want in order to believe? I understand that you don't like an invisible God. have you ever ponder that maybe God exists without having the traits you want?

One that I think exists. My lack of belief has nothing to do with God being desireable or not. If I did believe, that would effect whether I worshipped God or not. But I don't think God exists, so it's a moot point.

 

[Valjean]

Just did.
Others accept it as "rational." So does scientific observation, that original complex, functional structures require intelligence as their source.

Have you seen a cell, or functional atomic structures, arise from nothing? I haven't.

Any bio lab can make cells, albeit simple ones. It's just chemistry -- no magical manipulation needed. Just a few, universal laws of physics can and has generated the entirety of the universe. Yes, it does seem incredibly complex, but look closely and each step follows naturally from previous ones, using known mechanisms of physics and chemistry.
It doesn't take intelligence for water to find its way downhill.

I think you're reasoning from your own experience of the macro-world and, particularly, from human technology, where the complex structures surrounding us really are intentionally designed and manufactured.
Dive deeper, though, and the normal rules go right out the window.
Even Einstein balked at quantum mechanics.

 

[osgart]

I suppose you can say because love exists so to must there be a God. That if qualities of heart exist, and because to know and understand exist there must be an original knower, understander, and an original being of love. Because to know, and to understand and to love serve purposes.

The heart exists to experience life, the mind exists for the heart, and both exist to serve the person, and body.

You could say there is logical reasons for the mind and heart to exist. You could say that the body has a purpose, and everything of being serves a purpose. To experience and to survive, and to learn and to grow.

And because the mind, heart serve a purpose to the being, there must be a purposer.

You would not necessarily be wrong.

You would not necessarily be proven wrong by nature reality.

But can you make the jump to be proven right in saying that human beings are logically put together because it appears so.

Everything about a being's mind and heart serves a purpose, functionally.

And the human body does serve functional purposes, and is therefore logically put together. And if logically put together then a logician must be the reason.

If there were no functionality in nature, we would not exist. Functionality requires a builder of some kind.

If mindless processes create they would not make anything functional. Efficient function requires intelligence.

You would not necessarily be proven wrong by anything out there.

And just to say the laws of physics are sufficient for producing everything in existence does not mean they are sufficient. Though many are convinced they are sufficient does not make them right.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Any bio lab can make cells, albeit simple ones.

Thank you for helping prove my point: the bio lab represents intelligence. (Or do they operate by themselves?)

Now, prove it occurs naturally, not artificially.

 

[Valjean]

The labs are just reproducing conditions that occur all the time outside the lab. The technicians aren't constructing cells, they're just observing them self-forming.

 

[Audie]

atheists, what kind of God do you want in order to believe? I understand that you don't like an invisible God. have you ever ponder that maybe God exists without having the traits you want?

Speaking for myself, your questions are from somewhere
so far from how I think that there is no answer.

I suppose what the god-believers do is concoct
something to their taste, then decide to believe it.

There either is, or is not a (real) god.

If there is, there seems to be no way for me to know it.

IF I detected a god, then what? Spin a prayer wheel?
Crawl up a mountain? Build a minaret? Nothing?
Try to talk to it? How am I supposed to find out
what this god is about, or if any response on my part is
called for?

Did you ever ponder the obvious fact that you have
no idea how an atheist thinks, or, that your "god"
has all the traits of something that does not exit at all?

 

[Audie]

Thank you for helping prove my point: the bio lab represents intelligence. (Or do they operate by themselves?)

Now, prove it occurs naturally, not artificially.

The line between providing the necessary conditions
for something to occur spontaneously, and "creating"
something is completely clear in your mind?

 

[BilliardsBall]

atheists, what kind of God do you want in order to believe? I understand that you don't like an invisible God. have you ever ponder that maybe God exists without having the traits you want?

Speaking as a former atheist, we want to be God, and run the show! US.

 

[Audie]

Speaking as a former atheist, we want to be God, and run the show! US.

Some of us doubt that you were ever actually an atheist.

The part in bold is one reason.

 

[Ostronomos]

The reason God possesses all the traits of something that doesn't exist is because He can be logically deduced only if you are unable to evidence Him through entering ultimate reality (aka a higher dimension that is 90 degrees to blind nature/ everyday reality). If that is indeed the case then atheism is on shaky grounds.

 

[syo]

I dont know what a god is. Anything could be a god. Is there a universal definition of god to where my answer would be more specific to the question you ask?

Exactly! Which is the correct definition?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly! Which is the correct definition?

Does it matter?

My perspective is that someone is a theist if they consider at least one thing they believe in to be a god.

If two people both believe in the Sun but one considers the sun a god and the other one isn't, then the one who considers the Sun to be a god is a theist and the one who doesn't is an atheist (provided she doesn't believe in any other gods, of course).

I think it would be a mistake to say, for instance, that the Sun doesn't meet the definition of "god," so they're both atheists.

 

[syo]

Does it matter?

My perspective is that someone is a theist if they consider at least one thing they believe in to be a god.

If two people both believe in the Sun but one considers the sun a god and the other one isn't, then the one who considers the Sun to be a god is a theist and the one who doesn't is an atheist (provided she doesn't believe in any other gods, of course).

I think it would be a mistake to say, for instance, that the Sun doesn't meet the definition of "god," so they're both atheists.

that's a fine example you gave. what has made the believer to say sun is god?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

that's a fine example you gave. what has made the believer to say sun is god?

Usually, it's the normal way that people come to believe in any god: they're brought up from childhood to believe in it as part of a religion.

Solar deity - Wikipedia

 

[syo]

Usually, it's the normal way that people come to believe in any god: they're brought up from childhood to believe in it as part of a religion.

Solar deity - Wikipedia

true true. and the sad part is that they never explain the child what makes a god god.