Why I think it is logical that God exists?

[Maximus]

The way I understood his thread is that the OP was a question if the authors logic was correct. And although I didn't answer his question, I gave him a source where I'm certain he'll find it. Whether or not he pursues that source it's his prerogative and has no meaning to me whether or not he pursues it. Ok?

If you haven't read his proof then you have no way of knowing that he'll "find his answer" watching some ridiculous 2.5 hour movie. You still haven't read his post. Is it really that confusing for you?

 

[NYgs23]

The way I understood his thread is that the OP was a question if the authors logic was correct. And although I didn't answer his question, I gave him a source where I'm certain he'll find it. Whether or not he pursues that source it's his prerogative and has no meaning to me whether or not he pursues it. Ok?

You haven't read the question, but you say you're certain I'll find the answer to it there. But I'm not certain I'll find it there, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to schlep through it on the off-chance the Stefan Molyneux successfully rebutted my argument, especially since he never read my argument anymore than you have.

Oh, well. I guess we'll have to just leave it there.

 

[hazek]

Sure I read it. The thread says: Why I think it is logical that God exists?

And I know Stefan showed in that video that it is in fact not logical that God exists because I like you was interested in the same question and watched all of it and got my answer.


So if you are honest with your intentions of getting an answer to your question and a potential rebuttal to your argument, you'll watch it and if you are not, then I guess you wont. But I don't care either way.

This is my last post in this thread.

 

[Yieu]

Whether or not he pursues that source it's his prerogative and has no meaning to me whether or not he pursues it. Ok?

If it has no meaning to you whether he watches the video, then don't expect him to watch it, especially without addressing his post, okay?

And his post is not merely the thread title, in case you were mislead into believing it was. It is the content of the post.

 

[jmdrake]

As an agnostic leaning towards atheism, philosophical logic or ideas to me became meaningless and didn't convince me that there was/is a personal G-d. What convinced me was when I obeyed Jesus command to come to Him. Upon praying to Him, my prayers were immediately answered. Other prayers of mine have been answered. That is what has convinced me that there is a personal G-d. Have any Christians on this forum had their prayers answered?

That's the wisest thing I've seen stated in this thread and perhaps on this subforum. YumYum, I know you're not a big fan of Paul, but in many ways your experience mirrors his. (Once against Jesus then became and advocate after a personal experience. Like Paul you realize that a personal testimony is more powerful than "logical arguments" etc.)

To other Christians reading this, I urge you to read Acts 17 as well as 1 Corinthians 1:24-28 and 1 Corinthians 2. You might win over some people with well thought out logical arguments about the existence and nature of God, as Paul made a few converts with his "To an unknown god" argument in Acts 17. Some will scoff, some will be interested in further discussion, and a few will believe. But that's not nearly as powerful as a personal testimony.

And yes. I have had prayers answered. I had one answered recently in fact. There was a young man I felt impressed to pray for who I believe loves God but is not choosing to submit to God's will for his life. I didn't know how to approach that without seeming judgmental, so I asked him if I could pray for him in general. That night he and his girlfriend had a fight in public that almost came to blows. While that was bad, it opened the opportunity for me and others to talk to them about Jesus. Again it was in a non judgmental way. Both of them were very receptive. I'm sure some would consider that all "coincidence", but I don't.

 

[jmdrake]

If it has no meaning to you whether he watches the video, then don't expect him to watch it, especially without addressing his post, okay?

And his post is not merely the thread title, in case you were mislead into believing it was. It is the content of the post.

Because he doesn't care. People on these forums poor their hearts out on issues they feel passionate about and they expect others to be open minded. But not everybody is open minded and even fewer people are open minded about everything. It's not just religion. You see these kinds of responses on everything from foreign policy to conspiracy theories to abortion to you name it. Some folks are just in "evangelistic" mode and, just like a Jehovah's Witness, all they want to do is to propagate their point of view and not listen to yours. That's just life.

 

[idirtify]

I've already posted this on another forum, but I thought I'd post it here too:

I think the existence of God is knowable through reason. I am interested in hearing what other people think of my argument for God's existence, especially people who disagree with me.

First of all, I don't really consider the concept of “religion” as a meaningful category. It's impossible to define. All ideas, including so-called religious and so-called scientific ones, are rooted in philosophy and philosophy is rooted in human reason. So the idea of God is a philosophical idea and must therefore be analyzed and debated through axiomatic logic.

Secondly, I'm defining “God” here in a broad philosophical sense: an Universal Mind that originated the rest of existence. It's not necessarily the God of the Bible or anything else. Although I'm a Christian, for the purposes of this argument, I'm only suggesting an infinite intelligence that caused the Universe.

It seems to me that the existence an infinite, universal creative intelligence can be deduced from the fact of existence. Even if I doubt all my senses, I know something exists, at the very least myself. I know that I exist as a conscious mind. So how does this extant world exist? There are only two possibilities: either it exists out of logical necessity or it is contingent upon something else that is logically necessary.

If I am contingent upon something else, it is likely that that thing is simpler than I am, since simple things tend to give rise to more complex things, meaning things with more composite parts. It is also more likely that a simple thing is logically necessary rather a more complex thing.

Now, it appears that the world outside myself is very complex. Assuming this world doesn't exist—that my mind has merely generated it—that means that my mind is very complex. So either way, the extant world is complex. So it's not likely to be logically necessary. Rather it's likely to be contingent upon something simpler than itself, something that is logically necessary.

This simple, logically necessary cause of the world is probably infinite. This is because infinity is the simplest possible thing: it has no composite parts, since the composite parts would themselves have to be finite.

Note that this contradicts of the more common idea that would say the most simple thing is pure nothingness. In fact, nothingness can not exist. We know this because nothing cannot cause something, and we know that something exists.

Thus, the basic, original absolute simplicity of reality is probably the opposite of Nothingness. It is an infinite All. As absolute All-ness, it has no boundaries or limits and is therefore infinite and infinitely simple.

Now, it is probable that this All-ness is intelligent. We know that intelligence exists, since we know, if we know anything, that we exist. And this All-ness, being All-ness, must embrace that intelligence. Therefore, it must itself possess intelligence. In fact, as the fullness of existence, it must be the fullness of intelligence. It must be a Universal Mind.

It seems you “de-create” god by reducing him to a non-religious “infinite intelligence”, and then further reduce to “infinity” (which you call “simple”), thereby reducing your burden of proof. But then it seems you “re-create” the religious god when you imbue said infinity with consciousness and the ability to create.

First, your only logic for this re-creation is your observation that you exist (which observation depends on your senses, btw). It really seems like a logical fallacy to deduce god’s existence from nothing more than your own. Second, even if such a thing as infinity were proven to be simple and logical, it would not necessarily imply (let alone prove) consciousness or the ability to create.

So, either I don’t follow your logic, or it’s not good logic.

 

[idirtify]

Because he doesn't care. People on these forums poor their hearts out on issues they feel passionate about and they expect others to be open minded. But not everybody is open minded and even fewer people are open minded about everything. It's not just religion. You see these kinds of responses on everything from foreign policy to conspiracy theories to abortion to you name it. Some folks are just in "evangelistic" mode and, just like a Jehovah's Witness, all they want to do is to propagate their point of view and not listen to yours. That's just life.

So you don’t think one opponent should be expected to search a large reference for his own rebuttal, without the other opponent citing the specifics, right?

 

[YumYum]

So you don’t think one opponent should be expected to search a large reference for his own rebuttal, without the other opponent citing the specifics, right?

That isn't what he was saying. Everybody wants to be right; whether it is discussing politics, the economy, or even sex for that matter. Nobody wants to be wrong; that is human nature. An atheist comes to the conclusion that there is no G-d, and so he/she believes that everybody that thinks there is a G-d is mentally ill. Yet, does the atheist take the time to examine the teachings of Jesus? How can they criticize something they have absolutely no comprehension about? It would like me saying "I hate Calculus", and yet, I have never studied Calculus. Where is the logic in my judgment?

 

[AFPVet]

As an agnostic leaning towards atheism, philosophical logic or ideas to me became meaningless and didn't convince me that there was/is a personal G-d. What convinced me was when I obeyed Jesus command to come to Him. Upon praying to Him, my prayers were immediately answered. Other prayers of mine have been answered. That is what has convinced me that there is a personal G-d. Have any Christians on this forum had their prayers answered?

My prayers have been answered in a general sense—that is to say, specified 'requests' may not have been granted; however, my needs have been met. Sometimes, we really do not know what we want or need. Our faith is also judged all of the time... some things are allowed to happen (or not).

 

[jmdrake]

So you don’t think one opponent should be expected to search a large reference for his own rebuttal, without the other opponent citing the specifics, right?

Well that wasn't what I was saying (YumYum hit that nail on the head*) but I do agree. If there is going to actually be a discussion or "debate" both sides have to actually consider what is said and respond. Hazek said he didn't even read the initial post. That tells me he's not interested in having a discussion. Nobody can make him engage in discussion. The best anyone can do is recognize his response for what it is.

And yes, if there is going to be a discussion you have to make it as easy as possible for both sides to consider specific evidence (not some 2 hour video) and respond. For example, if someone says "I don't believe that Ron Paul would be a good president because of X" the best thing is direct evidence why X isn't true or why X isn't important or why Ron Paul is actually right about X as opposed to posting some documentary and saying "If you just watch this you'll see why Ron Paul is the greatest person on earth." The person you are talking to will probably respond with "Why should I waste my time with that if you can't address a simple direct point?" I've seen worse than this though. I've run into people on forums who, in the face of evidence they really couldn't refute about foreign affairs or Austrian economics, would attack me for "Not reading books" and claim "If you just read such and such book by so and so then you'll know I'm right". So I'm supposed to go look up some 500 page book, read it, and get back with them in a week just to respond to a single point. Not a good way to have a discussion IMO. (Not an effective evangelistic tool IMO either.)

Edit: *I must point out that Christians are capable of doing the same thing. It whenever someone has already made their mind up to the point that they really aren't interested in hearing the other side.

 

[YumYum]

My prayers have been answered in a general sense—that is to say, specified 'requests' may not have been granted; however, my needs have been met. Sometimes, we really do not know what we want or need. Our faith is also judged all of the time... some things are allowed to happen (or not).

Thank you for sharing, and I mean it. You are the first person to come forward and discuss how prayer has had an impact on your life. What Jesus has done to help me is remove bitterness and resentments from my heart. I was so angry. And yet He has helped me to forgive and forget and move on. I mean that the very moment I prayed for His help in this regard, He instantly took away my bitterness and resentments. Do you want to talk about something that will make you hair stand on end? Well, I have experienced it first hand. So, I encourage all: Keep praying!!

 

[robert68]

So you don’t think one opponent should be expected to search a large reference for his own rebuttal, without the other opponent citing the specifics, right?

The one who started this thread, using his own words, didn’t request someone find him a 2 1/2 hour athiest sermon.

 

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by idirtify
So you don’t think one opponent should be expected to search a large reference for his own rebuttal, without the other opponent citing the specifics, right?

yes, if there is going to be a discussion you have to make it as easy as possible for both sides to consider specific evidence (not some 2 hour video) and respond. For example, if someone says "I don't believe that Ron Paul would be a good president because of X" the best thing is direct evidence why X isn't true or why X isn't important or why Ron Paul is actually right about X as opposed to posting some documentary and saying "If you just watch this you'll see why Ron Paul is the greatest person on earth." The person you are talking to will probably respond with "Why should I waste my time with that if you can't address a simple direct point?" I've seen worse than this though. I've run into people on forums who, in the face of evidence they really couldn't refute about foreign affairs or Austrian economics, would attack me for "Not reading books" and claim "If you just read such and such book by so and so then you'll know I'm right". So I'm supposed to go look up some 500 page book, read it, and get back with them in a week just to respond to a single point. Not a good way to have a discussion IMO.

I am extremely glad that you currently concur. But…

that is a drastic change from your position of last month as stated here:
“And you have time for the video. It would take you less time to watch it than it takes you to argue with people about stuff you don't understand.”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...t-pro-life-quot-people/page22&highlight=video
post #217

And exacerbated here:
“It's illogical for you to claim you didn't have time to watch the video yet you continue to argue in this thread. If you don't want to watch then just say you don't want to watch it. Don't make lame excuses.”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...t-pro-life-quot-people/page26&highlight=video
post #260

But that’s OK. You have now seen the light and have turned over a new leaf. Change is good

 

[jmdrake]

So let's see. You think that a 9 MINUTE VIDEO that you can understand the gist of it the first minute and even simply from the title is the same as a 1 and 1/2 hour video? Seriously? I see that you haven't turned over a new leaf. You still make conclusions based on premises that make absolutely no sense. The whole point of the abortion survivor video can be gleaned from the title itself by any reasonable person who is truly looking for the truth. The point is that she was an abortion survivor. And that was relevant to the point that there is little difference between a viable fetus in or outside of the womb. The video just drove home an obvious point. In hazek's 1 1/2 hour video there is no single point that's being driven home. If you wanted an honest comparison you would have to go with my posting a 1 1/2 video titled "Why abortion is wrong". Nice try. No cigar.

Oh, and for the record, here another thread that goes to the same issue of abortion survivors. In this case it's about a doctor being charged with murder for killing fetuses after they were born alive.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ortion-Doctor-Charged-With-8-Counts-Of-Murder

You don't have to read through the whole thread to get the gist of the point, but it would be quicker to do that then to try to argue back and forth while ignoring obvious facts.

Originally Posted by idirtify
So you don’t think one opponent should be expected to search a large reference for his own rebuttal, without the other opponent citing the specifics, right?



I am extremely glad that you currently concur. But…

that is a drastic change from your position of last month as stated here:
“And you have time for the video. It would take you less time to watch it than it takes you to argue with people about stuff you don't understand.”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...t-pro-life-quot-people/page22&highlight=video
post #217

And exacerbated here:
“It's illogical for you to claim you didn't have time to watch the video yet you continue to argue in this thread. If you don't want to watch then just say you don't want to watch it. Don't make lame excuses.”
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...t-pro-life-quot-people/page26&highlight=video
post #260

But that’s OK. You have now seen the light and have turned over a new leaf. Change is good

 

[NYgs23]

First, your only logic for this re-creation is your observation that you exist (which observation depends on your senses, btw).

Um...no, it doesn't. As Descartes said, I think, therefore I am.

It really seems like a logical fallacy to deduce god’s existence from nothing more than your own.

Why?

Second, even if such a thing as infinity were proven to be simple and logical, it would not necessarily imply (let alone prove) consciousness or the ability to create.

First of all, infinity doesn't necessarily have an ability to create. However, the first cause of creation would have to an infinite and absolute Being. And I explained why, as an infinite and absolute first cause of creation, it would also have to be conscious: "We know that intelligence exists, since we know, if we know anything, that we exist. And this All-ness, being All-ness, must embrace that intelligence. Therefore, it must itself possess intelligence. In fact, as the fullness of existence, it must be the fullness of intelligence. It must be a Universal Mind."

So, either I don’t follow your logic, or it’s not good logic.

It's the former

 

[Suzu]

You haven't read my post, but you want me to watch a two and half hour video?

I read your OP, I was raised Christian, and I have entertained thoughts similar to those you expressed in the OP. I also watched the video hazek posted, and hazek is correct: You will find answers in that video.

BTW it's not really a video, it's an audiobook with captions. So you don't actually need to "watch" it unless you want to read along with the audio. It's well worth the time.

 

[hazek]

I read your OP, I was raised Christian, and I have entertained thoughts similar to those you expressed in the OP. I also watched the video hazek posted, and hazek is correct: You will find answers in that video.

BTW it's not really a video, it's an audiobook with captions. So you don't actually need to "watch" it unless you want to read along with the audio. It's well worth the time.

AHA! Vindicated!

 

[jmdrake]

AHA! Vindicated!

One atheist agrees with another. Quell surprise.

 

[hazek]

One atheist agrees with another. Quell surprise.

Ah yes because getting an answer to a question has anything to do with being an atheist or theist, right?