Why I think it is logical that God exists?

[AFPVet]

OTOH: If it’s inconceivable, how do you even know what it is you are claiming to have faith in?

This is an astute question... and to answer this, I would say that I conceive love—and the thought of a loving creator as being the reference for my faith.

 

[reillym]

It's very simple. My major premise was there is not real difference between a fetus inside the womb and a fetus of that same gestational age outside the womb. As proof is the fact that this particular fetus survived outside the womb and grew up to be an articulate young woman despite the fact her mother tried to have her killed before she was born. The point is obvious to anyone reasonably intelligent.

P.S. When I hear you say crap like "control yourself" to me and I become more convinced that you do not understand the definition of ad hominem or self control. So "control yourself" idirtify and quit making "veiled insults".

Being against abortion causes women to die and babies to die. Statistics of countries that ban abortion or limit medical procedures support this claim.

Sperm can live outside of a man, and they are living organisms. Maybe we should all save our condoms just in case they fall into a bucket of eggs.

 

[jmdrake]

Being against abortion causes women to die and babies to die. Statistics of countries that ban abortion or limit medical procedures support this claim.

Most countries that limit abortion have high mortality rates for other reasons, so no statistics do not support that claim. But I'm not surprised you'd make it anyway. But even if it was true that would still be the fault of the women choosing to have the botched abortions. Still, I'll note that you think Ron Paul is trying to cause women to die.

Edit: I note that you claimed being against abortion causes women and babies to die? How can being against killing babies cause more babies to die? Please explain.

Sperm can live outside of a man, and they are living organisms. Maybe we should all save our condoms just in case they fall into a bucket of eggs.

A sperm that isn't killed doesn't by itself grow up to go around the country and make lectures about why spermacide is wrong. Logic fail. Again here's a short video for you to watch. By now you should know what it's about.

 

[outspoken]

I invested much of my life into being an agnostic bordering on atheist. While it was intellectually easier, it was spiritually and physically much more emotionally painful. That said, I would say the vast majority of Christians are very unChrist-like.

 

[idirtify]

It's very simple. My major premise was there is not real difference between a fetus inside the womb and a fetus of that same gestational age outside the womb. As proof is the fact that this particular fetus survived outside the womb and grew up to be an articulate young woman despite the fact her mother tried to have her killed before she was born. The point is obvious to anyone reasonably intelligent.

P.S. When I hear you say crap like "control yourself" to me and I become more convinced that you do not understand the definition of ad hominem or self control. So "control yourself" idirtify and quit making "veiled insults".

OK, but I believe this is the first time that you have specified how you think any part of the video, or the phrase “abortion survivor”, supports your anti-abortion argument. But speaking of a “reasonably intelligent” inference: not only doesn’t the phrase “abortion survivor” automatically imply “a fetus that survived outside the womb after the mother tried to have her killed before she was born”, but the word “abortion” doesn’t automatically imply killing the fetus; abortion simply means removing it. But anyway, the point here is that it is YOUR job to explain your argument; which includes explaining your references. If you refuse to do that, you can’t blame your opponent. Beyond that, any further argument about abortion should be taken to the abortion thread.

Since you apparently do not understand my comment to control your aggressive behavior, let me explain. “You aren't being real here, but that's to be expected” implies that I am never “real”, which (besides being an absolute exaggeration) at least borders on a personal insult (ad hominem). Considering your past pattern of insulting, it warranted such a comment.

 

[idirtify]

This is an astute question... and to answer this, I would say that I conceive love—and the thought of a loving creator as being the reference for my faith.

That sounds more like a “hope” than a “faith”. Wanting a thing to be true because it would be nice and evokes a pleasant feeling is different than actually believing in the improvable thing.

 

[AFPVet]

That sounds more like a “hope” than a “faith”. Wanting a thing to be true because it would be nice and evokes a pleasant feeling is different than actually believing in the improvable thing.

Not necessarily... I connect this feeling with biblical text. Therefore, this is more than 'hope'—but actually faith.

 

[georgiaboy]

I invested much of my life into being an agnostic bordering on atheist. While it was intellectually easier, it was spiritually and physically much more emotionally painful. That said, I would say the vast majority of Christians are very unChrist-like.

Yes we are. We are the chiefest of sinners, the highest of hypocrites. We know better, and yet we continue to rebel against the One who saved us. We are weak and afraid, prideful, lustful hypocrites. And that's on the outside; if our hearts were to be exposed, they'd be blackened with the sin they carry, sins of envy, hatred, and the like. We do not deserve the grace that's been afforded us. I am constantly amazed at God's ability to forgive my depravity, over and over again. It's love that is unexplainable, uncontainable, and yet in my life undeniable.

If any Christ-likeness is recognized in believers, it should only be attributed to the God who deigned to save the sorry soul from itself.

 

[outspoken]

Yes we are. We are the chiefest of sinners, the highest of hypocrites. We know better, and yet we continue to rebel against the One who saved us. We are weak and afraid, prideful, lustful hypocrites. And that's on the outside; if our hearts were to be exposed, they'd be blackened with the sin they carry, sins of envy, hatred, and the like. We do not deserve the grace that's been afforded us. I am constantly amazed at God's ability to forgive my depravity, over and over again. It's love that is unexplainable, uncontainable, and yet in my life undeniable.

If any Christ-likeness is recognized in believers, it should only be attributed to the God who deigned to save the sorry soul from itself.

Geeez, don't beat yourself up so much... your wasting precious energy which could be spent serving God via eminating love unto yourself as well as your fellow man. The word 'sin' means in Greek literally 'to miss the mark.' It does not mean that you are evil, but rather that path of evil resides within each of us. We are all human and need to learn to accept and embrace our humaness. We also need to be each others' supporter and teamate in choosing the path of virtue and love. It is in choosing love that we become divinely closer to the God. Keep it simple, choose love. That said, sometimes the greatest form of love we can show is to say "No."

 

[NYgs23]

1. Your thinking, regarding your self-identity, is just your “sense” of yourself.

Well, if that's how you define "sense," okay. But I meant the empirical senses: sight, hearing, etc. Empirically observed reality does not prove itself, and therefore we must begin with axiomatic logic truths of which we can be certain.

What does your existence have to do with proving that god (or a universal consciousness, for that matter) exists?

My existence proves that there is an existence. And from the fact of existence, we can prove that God exists, as I laid out in the OP.

Here you say infinity can’t create, so you have this thing called “first cause” create infinity.

No, I'm saying that the first cause is an absolute entity and therefore is infinite in all existential qualities.

In reality, you have merely created both infinity and said first cause out of nothing.

Actually, I'm saying they must exist out of logical necessity; it would be illogical for them to not exist.

And then you just arbitrarily add on a third thing called “being”, whereby you magically create a god.

No. I said the logically necessary first cause must be simple, absolute, and intelligent. And I explained why. Obviously it must also be a being, for if it wasn't a being, it would have to be an abstract concept. And abstract concepts can't cause anything.

First of all, the idea of “first cause” / “creation” contradicts the idea of “infinity”; because infinity, being what it is, can’t have a beginning.

The first cause does not have a beginning. It didn't "pop" into existence. It exists outside of time as a logically necessary entity: an entity that must exist, must always exist, because the laws of logic demand it.

Secondly, what causes this first cause? If your argument is based on a thing that caused everything to begin, what stops you there? What about the thing that caused that thing?

Obviously, you're not understanding anything I've said. The point is that there must be some cause that does not itself have a cause. Otherwise, everything would be contingent on everything else, and that would be absurd. So there must be a first uncaused cause that exists simply because logic demands it exist. Once we understand that, we can begin to analyze the qualities this cause must have which I do in my OP.

Thirdly, the fact that there is a cause that we have not yet discovered/defined means nothing about the nature of that cause. Lack of knowledge is lack of knowledge, and nothing more; and you can’t logically or credibly just make up things like “lack of knowledge is evidence of god”. We will probably always be one cause away from knowing everything. Every new thing we learn, we will ask “but what came before that?” And while some people will always insert a god in that gap, it is not logical by any meaning of the word.

My argument is rationalistic, not empirical. It requires no empirical evidence for anything, which, as I said, is why it still works even presuming that nothing exists but my mind.

So the first cause was already infinite? I thought it was what created infinity?

No, you were confused. It is already infinite is every existential quality: timeless, spaceless, and omnipotent.

And why would it “have to be” conscious? Didn’t you just finish saying that the first cause created consciousness? Or are you saying that an infinite and conscious being was the first cause, and that its first creation was an infinite and conscious being?

I am saying that the first cause is an infinite and conscious being and created the phenomenal universe. I never said it created consciousness, created infinity, or anything like that. I don't know where you got that idea.

 

[georgiaboy]

Geeez, don't beat yourself up so much... your wasting precious energy which could be spent serving God via eminating love unto yourself as well as your fellow man. The word 'sin' means in Greek literally 'to miss the mark.' It does not mean that you are evil, but rather that path of evil resides within each of us. We are all human and need to learn to accept and embrace our humaness. We also need to be each others' supporter and teamate in choosing the path of virtue and love. It is in choosing love that we become divinely closer to the God. Keep it simple, choose love. That said, sometimes the greatest form of love we can show is to say "No."

Haha, dude, don't worry, I'm one of the happiest people you'd ever meet, with love abounding. It doesn't change my understanding of the reality of the situation, though. My joy stems from absolutely overflowing thanksgiving at the gift of forgiveness I've been given, despite my flaws. It's literally a get out of jail free card, with ongoing love, acceptance, and mercy to boot. All this in spite of the continued hypocrisy. That's the paradox. That's the miracle. That's the reason.

 

[robert68]

...

My argument is rationalistic, not empirical. It requires no empirical evidence for anything, which, as I said, is why it still works even presuming that nothing exists but my mind....

No, you were confused. It is already infinite is every existential quality: timeless, spaceless, and omnipotent...

I am saying that the first cause is an infinite and conscious being and created the phenomenal universe. I never said it created consciousness, created infinity, or anything like that. I don't know where you got that idea.

Can you imagine a conscious being living outside of time? Not to suggest it can’t, but can you imagine how it would do so?

 

[NYgs23]

Can you imagine a conscious being living outside of time? Not to suggest it can’t, but can you imagine how it would do so?

I see no logical reason why it couldn't, although it would be a sort of consciousness very different from our own.

 

[idirtify]

Well, if that's how you define "sense," okay. But I meant the empirical senses: sight, hearing, etc. Empirically observed reality does not prove itself, and therefore we must begin with axiomatic logic truths of which we can be certain.



My existence proves that there is an existence. And from the fact of existence, we can prove that God exists, as I laid out in the OP.



No, I'm saying that the first cause is an absolute entity and therefore is infinite in all existential qualities.



Actually, I'm saying they must exist out of logical necessity; it would be illogical for them to not exist.



No. I said the logically necessary first cause must be simple, absolute, and intelligent. And I explained why. Obviously it must also be a being, for if it wasn't a being, it would have to be an abstract concept. And abstract concepts can't cause anything.



The first cause does not have a beginning. It didn't "pop" into existence. It exists outside of time as a logically necessary entity: an entity that must exist, must always exist, because the laws of logic demand it.



Obviously, you're not understanding anything I've said. The point is that there must be some cause that does not itself have a cause. Otherwise, everything would be contingent on everything else, and that would be absurd. So there must be a first uncaused cause that exists simply because logic demands it exist. Once we understand that, we can begin to analyze the qualities this cause must have which I do in my OP.



My argument is rationalistic, not empirical. It requires no empirical evidence for anything, which, as I said, is why it still works even presuming that nothing exists but my mind.



No, you were confused. It is already infinite is every existential quality: timeless, spaceless, and omnipotent.



I am saying that the first cause is an infinite and conscious being and created the phenomenal universe. I never said it created consciousness, created infinity, or anything like that. I don't know where you got that idea.

Let me try this approach:
Your consciousness of your environment is not fundamentally different than your consciousness of yourself, or your consciousness of your consciousness. No matter the type of nerves used, or not used, it’s all just perception through your mental faculties. And regarding the coherence of your “axiomatic/rationalistic logic”: you cannot claim that what you perceive through your five senses (“empirically observed reality”) is inherently less provable, but then claim that what you perceive without your five senses is inherently more accurate; and while your perception that you exist may be accurate, it says nothing about your perception that an infinite and conscious and intelligent god exists and created you and the universe. Let me put it this way: How can you be less certain that the temperature of the flame in which you just stuck your finger is higher than the ambient air, yet be more certain that an infinite and conscious and intelligent god exists and created you and the universe? Even if you think your perception of your existence has a higher probability of being accurate than your perception of the heat of that flame, it does not follow that your perception of something far less perceivable than either (an infinite and conscious and intelligent god that created you and the universe) has just as high of a probability. Your perception of this god thing is at best just another perception. And under your own standard of reality, it is just as fallible as anything.

 

[hazek]

Sometimes I really feel cheated when at my young age I don't have the necessary imagination anymore to believe in a holy invisible friend. It must be fun!

 

[NYgs23]

Let me try this approach:
Your consciousness of your environment is not fundamentally different than your consciousness of yourself, or your consciousness of your consciousness. No matter the type of nerves used, or not used, it’s all just perception through your mental faculties. And regarding the coherence of your “axiomatic/rationalistic logic”: you cannot claim that what you perceive through your five senses (“empirically observed reality”) is inherently less provable, but then claim that what you perceive without your five senses is inherently more accurate; and while your perception that you exist may be accurate, it says nothing about your perception that an infinite and conscious and intelligent god exists and created you and the universe. Let me put it this way: How can you be less certain that the temperature of the flame in which you just stuck your finger is higher than the ambient air, yet be more certain that an infinite and conscious and intelligent god exists and created you and the universe? Even if you think your perception of your existence has a higher probability of being accurate than your perception of the heat of that flame, it does not follow that your perception of something far less perceivable than either (an infinite and conscious and intelligent god that created you and the universe) has just as high of a probability. Your perception of this god thing is at best just another perception. And under your own standard of reality, it is just as fallible as anything.

Of course my perception of my existence is different from external reality. I can be absolutely certain that I exist on the basis I'm existing to think about it and make claim. I think, therefore I am. Meaning that the fact I am thinking about the question proves my existence with absolute certainty.

 

[NYgs23]

Sometimes I really feel cheated when at my young age I don't have the necessary imagination anymore to believe in a holy invisible friend. It must be fun!

You refuse to debate the issue, so why do you continue to waste everyone's time?

 

[jmdrake]

You refuse to debate the issue, so why do you continue to waste everyone's time?

Because it makes him feel good. Why else?

 

[idirtify]

Of course my perception of my existence is different from external reality. I can be absolutely certain that I exist on the basis I'm existing to think about it and make claim. I think, therefore I am. Meaning that the fact I am thinking about the question proves my existence with absolute certainty.

Of course your perception of your existence is different from your external reality, but it’s not fundamentally different than your PERCEPTION of your external reality.

“I think, therefore I am.” I like the Moody Blues version better: “I think I am, therefore I am, I think.”

Basically, you only PERCEIVE/THINK that you think and exist. In that “sense”, it’s no different than anything else you perceive; and you can’t actually know it any better than you know anything. Evidence of this is how often people are unconscious, how often they will “sense” they are dead or non-existent or that they are someone or something else. Surely you aren’t going to try to claim one’s self-awareness is always reliable or consistent. But even if your self-awareness was always absolutely infallible, it wouldn’t extend beyond the end of your nose, let alone go to the end of the universe and serve as reasoning to deduce that an infinite and conscious and intelligent god exists and created everything.

Or let’s try this angle: Does your right arm exist? Is it part of your self (self-awareness)? IOW, is it part of your self’s consciousness or do you merely perceive it?

 

[idirtify]

Because it makes him feel good. Why else?

Actually, I think he was commenting on how good others must feel when they believe in religion. Of course that’s not to say that he didn’t feel good saying it – since “feeling good” is pretty much everybody’s underlying motive for just about every action.

So I could say: “Ah HA! You only said that because it made you feel good.” And you could say the same about me. And we would both be right.