Why I think it is logical that God exists?

[AFPVet]

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!!

Thanks! That is really cool!

 

[NYgs23]

Why do you find the concept of "religion” impossible to define?

You first claim the concept of religion is "impossible to define", but then treat it as though it does mean something, declaring it “is rooted in philosophy and philosophy is rooted in human reason.”

Metaphysical ideas mean something. What I mean is that I think it's arbitrary to set aside some metaphysical ideas as religious and others as not religious. I see no objective line between them. For example, why is Buddhism a religion? Various forms of Buddhism don't even accept the existence of a God and so are just as atheistic as Richard Dawkins in the strict sense of the term. What about Confuscianism and Taoism? What about deism, pantheism, and panpsychism? Where do "religious" metaphysics end and non-religious metaphysics begin?

I bring this up because so many of these debates are predicated on the idea that you have religion on one side and atheism or possibly "science" on the other and never the twain shall meet. It's a false dichotomy because it all boils down to various schools of philosophy.

It's plausible there's a higher conscious universal creator (I don't see how it can be proven though). The word God however, is usually and especially in this forum, meant to be God in the biblical or religious sense.

However this forum may use the word "God," I'm using it to mean a higher conscious universal creator. At the moment, if I want to talk about the Christian God, I'll use the term "Christian God" or perhaps "Abrahamic God."

 

[NYgs23]

If you agree with the OP, you’ll need to rebut my disagreement in post 27.

I responded to your post in post #36.

 

[NYgs23]

Existence is not logically necessary. If there were "nothing" rather than "something", then we would not exist to observe the nothingness. But it doesn't follow that nothingness is impossible, it just means that it's impossible for us to observe it.

Existence must be rooted in something logically necessary, for otherwise everything would be contingent on everything else which is absurd. So, yes, the fact of existence does mean that existence must be logically necessary, which means that pure nothingness in logically impossible.

 

[austin944]

Existence must be rooted in something logically necessary,

You're claiming more than that. You're saying existence itself is logically necessary. Just because something exists, it doesn't follow that it must exist. Example: Frogs exist, but it doesn't follow that they must exist. They could die out from disease, or they might not have evolved into their current form, and hence might not have existed at all. You're confusing "what is", with "what must be".

 

[NYgs23]

You're claiming more than that. You're saying existence itself is logically necessary. Just because something exists, it doesn't follow that it must exist. Example: Frogs exist, but it doesn't follow that they must exist. They could die out from disease, or they might not have evolved into their current form, and hence might not have existed at all. You're confusing "what is", with "what must be".

First of all, it may very well be that frogs must exist. Why not? Maybe the only existence compatible with the laws of logic happens to be an existence that includes frogs.

But that's a side issue. The question I'm asking isn't whether or not frogs must exist. The question is whether it is possible for everything in existence to be contingent (i.e. caused by or dependent on the existence of something else). Do you think it is? I do not. I think there must be a uncaused original cause that is not contingent on anything else and therefore exists solely out of the fact that it would be illogical for it to not exist.

 

[Maximus]

You're claiming more than that. You're saying existence itself is logically necessary. Just because something exists, it doesn't follow that it must exist. Example: Frogs exist, but it doesn't follow that they must exist. They could die out from disease, or they might not have evolved into their current form, and hence might not have existed at all. You're confusing "what is", with "what must be".

Frogs are a contingent being and thus do not have to exist.

Food for thought for the thread: Was it Kant who denied that existence was a perfection?

 

[Mr.Fish]

I read your post, but was struck by your phrase "nothingness cannot exist", causing you to write off that section of thought.

Whilst "nothingness" cannot exist, the concept of nothingness can. Much in the same way that technically, "infinity" cannot truly exist, only the concept of infinity can. Writing off one concept in favour of another with the same traits just struck me as a little odd. "Infinity" and "Nothingness" are naught but human concepts, byproducts of our cognitive intelligence and the development of mathematics, it in itself a concept used to better understand the fundamental basics of the world we live in.

You go on to state that "It is an infinite All. As absolute All-ness, it has no boundaries or limits and is therefore infinite and infinitely simple." but something cannot be infinitely simple, and yet complex, like the processes of thought, which you state it must be capable of. I can see what you mean by stating that this complex thought is based upon a series of simpler parts, such as this "infinite all", but then that begs the question as to whether or not this is just circular argument.

If the intelligence is made via an infinite all, then presumably this intelligence cannot be a creator, as it needed the infinite all to come into being in the first place. However to create this infinite all would require some form of intelligence, If I am reading your post correctly.

If this is the case, then you have created a circular argument. However, I may have read your post incorrectly. Please tell me if I have

 

[AFPVet]

This is all based upon our current understanding and depth of thought. To illustrate, our brain may think in terms of three dimensions; however, let's say for the interests of this context, one cannot logically explain God's existence via this shallow depth of thought. Perhaps, if our brains were capable forth or fifth dimensional thought, we may be able to conceive this.

 

[idirtify]

I responded to your post in post #36.

I was replying to JohnEngland. Are you him?

Anyway, yes, I certainly missed your reply #36. Sorry bout that. So to continue, see next.

 

[idirtify]

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



2. Why?

3.

4. 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.

5. And I explained why, as an infinite and absolute first cause of creation, it would also have to be conscious:

6. "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."

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

2. Because there’s no apparent connection. What does your existence have to do with proving that god (or a universal consciousness, for that matter) exists? You might as well claim that your consciousness of your existence proves that this couch underneath me is conscious of the fact that I just farted.

3. You make a lot of “must” assertions that aren’t a “must”, your “logic” is not linear, and your conclusions are baseless. Let’s count your contradictions and leaps of logic:

4. Here you say infinity can’t create, so you have this thing called “first cause” create infinity. In reality, you have merely created both infinity and said first cause out of nothing. And then you just arbitrarily add on a third thing called “being”, whereby you magically create a god. 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. 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? 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.

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

6. Not only do I not follow some of your concepts/nouns, I don’t follow your “must” sequences. I mean even though I’m not totally clear on all your subjects, your “if/then” rationality doesn’t seem at all coherent.

 

[idirtify]

This is all based upon our current understanding and depth of thought. To illustrate, our brain may think in terms of three dimensions; however, let's say for the interests of this context, one cannot logically explain God's existence via this shallow depth of thought. Perhaps, if our brains were capable forth or fifth dimensional thought, we may be able to conceive this.

Well if it’s something that can’t be conceived, how can it be believed? Doesn’t belief have to have a tenable object? Or can one credibly claim to believe in “something which can not be explained or understood”. So instead of praying to “god”, the believer should open with “Dear thing-which-can’t-be-seen-heard-touched-proven-conceived-explained-or-understood”. Or stated differently: How does the believer know what they believe in, if they admit the thing can’t be conceived? Or the inverse: How does the thing the believer believes in really know whether he is being believed in or not?

 

[AFPVet]

Well if it’s something that can’t be conceived, how can it be believed? Doesn’t belief have to have a tenable object? Or can one credibly claim to believe in “something which can not be explained or understood”. So instead of praying to “god”, the believer should open with “Dear thing-which-can’t-be-seen-heard-touched-proven-conceived-explained-or-understood”. Or stated differently: How does the believer know what they believe in, if they admit the thing can’t be conceived? Or the inverse: How does the thing the believer believes in really know whether he is being believed in or not?

This is where the concept of faith comes in. In Genesis, God simply said "I am that I am". Perhaps all things are connected—all living energy.

 

[Mr.Fish]

This is where the concept of faith comes in. In Genesis, God simply said "I am that I am". Perhaps all things are connected—all living energy.

Faith, however, is just as unfounded as belief. In terms of an intellectual discussion on religion, I find faith is used as a bit of a cop-out answer, much in the same way that atheists/scientists will use "it will be proven" or something of the sort.

Not that I don't believe you mean to use it as a discussion point, I just feel that falling back on unfounded belief, regardless of religion or lack thereof, results in the death of discussion and the beginning of dispute.

As to your quote on all things being connected? Perhaps they are, perhaps not. If we count the elements that make up our bodies, then we all have something in common with everything. Whether there is a living energy, however, is yet to be discovered.

 

[jmdrake]

Time passed means nothing. Time spent means everything. We know nothing about what our opponents are spending their time doing. And I meant that 10 minutes is worth several pages of READING. Anyway, since I got you to agree with the principle, my job is done. Any more risks being too off-topic.

I don't agree with you in application. And time spent counts in this case because you could listen to the video in the background. And lastly your entire point is irrelevant because you didn't even need to spend 10 seconds! All you had to do was read the title! You aren't being real here, but that's to be expected.

 

[idirtify]

This is where the concept of faith comes in. In Genesis, God simply said "I am that I am". Perhaps all things are connected—all living energy.

OOH: Thank you for conceding that it’s more an issue of faith than logic. I appreciate your honesty.

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

 

[idirtify]

I don't agree with you in application. And time spent counts in this case because you could listen to the video in the background. And lastly your entire point is irrelevant because you didn't even need to spend 10 seconds! All you had to do was read the title! You aren't being real here, but that's to be expected.

Sorry, but I don’t do multiple-tasking well. And spare us your attempt to paint me as lazy, when it was you who refused to verbalize anything from the video that supported your argument. Now you claim you did exactly that when you pointed to the title. WHAT? How does that work? I mean exactly how does phrase "abortion survivor" do anything like make a point, provide evidence, or support your argument?

And “careful with that last line, Eugene”. You are losing control of your behavior again. There’s no need to start your pattern of insulting again.

 

[jmdrake]

Sorry, but I don’t do multiple-tasking well. And spare us your attempt to paint me as lazy, when it was you who refused to verbalize anything from the video that supported your argument.

I'm not trying to paint you as anything. I never have. Nor have I ever "lost control" with you. I've only spoken the truth. It's not my fault if you don't like the truth.

You being lazy? No. You work very hard at avoiding the truth. You are doing that right now.

I "refused to verbalize"? How so? What is there left to "verbalize"? I posted a video but I didn't need to post one to prove that point. The point was proven by the title itself. I asked you in my last post, and I'll ask you again, what part of "abortion survivor" do you NOT understand? You want me to "verbalize" what's in the video? Nothing of interest to you. It's just her life story. I doubt you'd care. It's totally irrelevant to the argument. All you need to know is that Gianna Jessen exists, that as a fetus she survived an abortion, and that she grew up to be an adult and she can now tell her story. That was obvious both from the title and from the context of the discussion.*

Anybody should be able to figure that out. And if it was confusing to you, I gave you a chance in my last post to explain where you were confused. Instead of taking that opportunity, you started up with your false accusations and ad hominems again. (And yeah, I know you will claim that you haven't made any ad hominem. That's just how these conversations go).

Really, it's silliness like this that got you put on my ignore list in the first place. I took you off temporarily to see if you had changed. You haven't. I'm sorry for that.

Note:* Remember I posted this in support of my argument that there is little difference between a fetus inside the womb and one outside the womb. You might have thought I was talking about Gianna being the woman having the abortion procedure. But that's not a rational conclusion based on the context since I was specifically taking about the fetus and not about the mother. But perhaps I'm expecting too much from you.

 

[idirtify]

I'm not trying to paint you as anything. I never have. Nor have I ever "lost control" with you. I've only spoken the truth. It's not my fault if you don't like the truth.

You being lazy? No. You work very hard at avoiding the truth. You are doing that right now.

I "refused to verbalize"? How so? What is there left to "verbalize"? I posted a video but I didn't need to post one to prove that point. The point was proven by the title itself. I asked you in my last post, and I'll ask you again, what part of "abortion survivor" do you NOT understand? You want me to "verbalize" what's in the video? Nothing of interest to you. It's just her life story. I doubt you'd care. It's totally irrelevant to the argument. All you need to know is that Gianna Jessen exists, that as a fetus she survived an abortion, and that she grew up to be an adult and she can now tell her story. That was obvious both from the title and from the context of the discussion.*

Anybody should be able to figure that out. And if it was confusing to you, I gave you a chance in my last post to explain where you were confused. Instead of taking that opportunity, you started up with your false accusations and ad hominems again. (And yeah, I know you will claim that you haven't made any ad hominem. That's just how these conversations go).

Really, it's silliness like this that got you put on my ignore list in the first place. I took you off temporarily to see if you had changed. You haven't. I'm sorry for that.

Note:* Remember I posted this in support of my argument that there is little difference between a fetus inside the womb and one outside the womb. You might have thought I was talking about Gianna being the woman having the abortion procedure. But that's not a rational conclusion based on the context since I was specifically taking about the fetus and not about the mother. But perhaps I'm expecting too much from you.

The part of “abortion survivor” I do not understand is how the phrase adds any point or evidence that supports your anti-abortion argument. But if you are going to lower the standard of evidence to such a low level, allow me to support my side of the argument with this phrase: “abortion advocate”. There, take that!

But wait…now you admit, “it's totally irrelevant to the argument”. Well finally.

But wait…now you are back to blaming me for being “confused” about the phrase. Hmm.

Let me tell you, what I am confused about right now is exactly what you are trying to argue at the moment. We were supposed to be arguing over the fairness of telling an opponent to find his rebuttal in a posted general reference. But amongst all your twists and turns, you seem to be trying to turn it into an abortion argument. If that’s what you are trying to do, please go back to the proper thread. I mean arguments about debate procedure will pop up often, and are not really off-topic; but the topic of abortion is completely separate from a thread about the logic of god’s existence.

PS: With each of your repeated false accusations of ad hominem, I become more convinced that you do not understand the definition.

 

[jmdrake]

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".

The part of “abortion survivor” I do not understand is how the phrase adds any point or evidence that supports your anti-abortion argument. But if you are going to lower the standard of evidence to such a low level, allow me to support my side of the argument with this phrase: “abortion advocate”. There, take that!

But wait…now you admit, “it's totally irrelevant to the argument”. Well finally.

But wait…now you are back to blaming me for being “confused” about the phrase. Hmm.

Let me tell you, what I am confused about right now is exactly what you are trying to argue at the moment. We were supposed to be arguing over the fairness of telling an opponent to find his rebuttal in a posted general reference. But amongst all your twists and turns, you seem to be trying to turn it into an abortion argument. If that’s what you are trying to do, please go back to the proper thread. I mean arguments about debate procedure will pop up often, and are not really off-topic; but the topic of abortion is completely separate from a thread about the logic of god’s existence.

PS: With each of your repeated false accusations of ad hominem, I become more convinced that you do not understand the definition.