Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See the totality of existence thread from me, I tried my proof there but had to stop further... you know why.
Okay, here is my proof of God's existence as maker of everything that is not himself.
But wait, wait, this thread is about the celestial teapot of Bertrand Russell.
Anyway, the deviation is not that bad that there will be trouble from anyone on the alert to cry, off topic!
1. There has always been existence, existence is the default status.
2. Existence makes up the universe that we are living in and are part and parcel of, including God, so that God is immanent to the universe but for being maker of everything He is transcendent also to the universe.
3. There was a status once when there were no material things which are now being studied by scientists, so that in that status the only component of the universe was God all by Himself -- at least that we know of as humans (perhaps He had created other things which are not subject to time and space).
4. Now scientists today tell us that there was a beginning to time and space and matter and all the things that for scientists make up the to scientists observable universe, and they are still looking for more components like for example the Higgs Boson.
5. At that default status of existence when the observable to man universe was not yet around, the universe then was all God Himself.
6. Then the observable universe came about.
7. How do you explain that?
8. It could not have come from nothing, but from something, and that something is God, that is why the author(s) of Genesis 1:1 say that "In the beginning God created heaven and hell."
Is that good enough for you?
By the way I believe that proof above is in my thread on the totality of existence, I might have brought it up also elsewhere, or it is elsewhere; but it is always in my heart and mind, and like the idea of God as some kind of colloidal medium that is penetrating all the beings which He did create, so that He is a kind of ether to all creation thus immanent to creation but as maker also transcendent to His creation, I mean this idea also is always in my heart and mind.
There was an ancient poet in the land of the Greeks(?) who more than 2,000 years back also tells us that in Him we live and move and have our being.
Now, see if you will someone will be shouting off topic!!!!
By the way, where is the evidence there? Look for it and you will find it.
Ryrge
I think this has been a useful thread but the point has been taken on board about the burden of proof. You and I have been careful to stay on topic and this is not a 'Evidence for the proof of God' thread.
However, If - let's say hypothetically - you were to start a thread in religion and Philosophy called...ah....mmm.....'Evidence for the proof of God'. You could just post your reasons why you think a god exists and I'd be happy to say whether I thought that was a sound evidence or not and, if not, would explain clearly and rationally, why not.
I trust that you by now know I can be relied on to give you a fair assessment.
Of course this means that the theist would be trying to persuade the untheist why a god exists and the Theist would have to prove nothing but that He or She had good reasons for crediting the argument or not. That does have the effect of putting the Goddless bastard in the judge's seat, but that - as Russell's teapot argues - is the logical state of affairs.
(1)The person making the claim has to provide the proof
(3) a priori supposition of any physical (or logical) entity prior to evidence for it is logically unjustifiable. That is, it is indefensible logic to start an argument (as not a few theists do) with 'Let's assume first off that God exists. Then...' It is logically indefensible to assume as a given what one is trying to prove.
(4) The suppression of evidence ought always to to be taken for the strongest evidence.
(5) No fees either way.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-15-2011 at 03:51 AM..
Reason: Evidence, not existence.
Oh fercrissake, Ryrge, if you think you have evidence or proof, just come out with it.
If the simple fact that we exist is it, don't bother....it's been used a zillion times before.
If, as you offered once before, that the evidence is that your nose is centered on your face instead of on your leg or azz, I doubt that'll fly any better than it did before but go ahead.....just list your proofs/evidence....get it over with!
Then you'll probably find out just why some evidence is acceptable or not.
The yes no situation will stay and persists, but what is the relevancy of Russell's teapot to evidence?
Dear Areq:
I will grant that your research into evidence appears to be quite voluminous.
The fact is that Christians keep on insisting that they have evidence that proves God exists, while atheists keep insisting that they don't.
In law there is the number one highest court in the country in a democratic system of government like the USA and also in my own country the Philippines, that decides finally and everyone has to comply even though he has seen it very clearly that the court is wrong.
I am trying to tell sanspeur that it is a yes no situation between Christians (yes) and atheists (no), and there is no court to judge who is correct and who wrong.
Are you cognizant of this situation?
That means that Christians will continue to insist and write extensively to explain and to convince mankind that yes on evidence God exists.
And atheists will also continue to write extensively to convince mankind that no Christians don't have evidence that God exists, or at most still not adequate.
How is this matter relevant to Bertrand Russell's teapot in outer space orbit?
What do you think about the relevancy of evidence to the teapot of Russell?
I will grant that your research into evidence appears to be quite voluminous.
The fact is that Christians keep on insisting that they have evidence that proves God exists, while atheists keep insisting that they don't.
In law there is the number one highest court in the country in a democratic system of government like the USA and also in my own country the Philippines, that decides finally and everyone has to comply even though he has seen it very clearly that the court is wrong.
I am trying to tell sanspeur that it is a yes no situation between Christians (yes) and atheists (no), and there is no court to judge who is correct and who wrong.
Are you cognizant of this situation?
That means that Christians will continue to insist and write extensively to explain and to convince mankind that yes on evidence God exists.
And atheists will also continue to write extensively to convince mankind that no Christians don't have evidence that God exists, or at most still not adequate.
How is this matter relevant to Bertrand Russell's teapot in outer space orbit?
What do you think about the relevancy of evidence to the teapot of Russell?
Ryrge
My dear Ryurge, I quite agree that the debate goes on. What each and every one of us has to do is look at the arguments for and against and make up their own minds.
I assert that logic and evidence will lead one to conclude that Theism has not made a sound case.
Theists will argue that it has.
As I suggest I am willing to discuss the arguments for (and against) - preferably in the religion section.
The relevance to Russell is that the logical position means that you have to persuade me into god - belief. I don't have to persuade you out of it. Logically, the burden of proof is on you to 'prove' God. I don't need to 'disprove' God. Where the evidence comes in that it is up to the one who believes in the existence of the teapot or alien space-ship or a god to produce the evidence to support that belief. It not logically correct to demand that others disprove it.
12. What do you say about my observations and thoughts here?
I need for you to restate them in 8 points exactly otherwise I won't even bother to look at them. You've made demands like this before, so it's only fair for you to put the same amount of work in.
What exactly is the point of Russell in using the figure of speech of a teapot orbiting in space?
He's showing that God is a loaded term. Everyone knows that an alleged tea pot orbiting the sun follows the same rules of logic and evidence as everything else. But as soon as you call it god, apologists feel the need to try and change the rules to define it into existence - or at least plausibility. You get all sorts of word games about how evidence doesn't apply, or entirely different classes of evidence need to be allowed, or how we have to redefine common everyday concepts just to leave room for the possibility of gods.
For believers, this seems like a good idea since it lets them continue to believe in god even though they know deep down that they have no reason to do so. For everyone else, it's transparent word games from people who just can't accept reality.
A very valid observation. We all know what a teapot is but if we talk about 'God' then the term can be morphed into a thousand different concepts which is why Hueff. asked Ryurge to say what he meant by 'God' at the outset.
I find that, while this is logically correct, it soon leads to an impasse with someone coming with nonsense such as (hypothetically) 'God is everything that everything that is not God is not' or 'If we define God then we are claiming to be equal with God'. I prefer to play using the other bod's pieces. It soon becomes evident what they have in mind.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-15-2011 at 08:19 AM..
Agreed totally that the burden is with the one with the idea, but deniers have to listen at least to what the idea is.
Ryrge
If I had a dollar for every hour that I have had listen to the idea (christianity), I could have a very nice holiday. I think that most "deniers" have listened to what the idea is.
Do you honestly believe that the idea of Christianity -- or a deity -- is not getting enough airplay?
99% of atheists are atheists precisely BECAUSE they've "listened" to this idea.
In deed, you can't be an atheists unless you have either heard of theism or atheism. there are only a tiny group of people left who are "non-theistic" because they have never heard of the ideas of theism.
The reaons atheists don't take the "ultimate creator" argument seriously is because, among other things, it is a "false stop" to an infinate regression argument. However, my philosophy teacher also explained that my Agnosticism argument was an infinate regression argument. that is why I don't fully trust logic; and neither did the teacher, as I believe he understood our human condition.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 08-15-2011 at 10:57 AM..
In deed, you can't be an atheists unless you have either heard of theism or atheism. there are only a tiny group of people left who are "non-theistic" because they have never heard of the ideas of theism.
The reaons atheists don't take the "ultimate creator" argument seriously is because, among other things, it is a "false stop" to an infinate regression argument. However, my philosophy teacher also explained that my Agnosticism argument was an infinate regression argument. that is why I don't fully trust logic; and neither did the teacher, as I believe he understood our human condition.
I might like to chat about that sometime. I think there is more than one logical solution to that particular problem. In fact, I think agnosticism might be one of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The yes no situation will stay and persists, but what is the relevancy of Russell's teapot to evidence?
