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.
Right. God has always existed because he created us and we exist.
OR
"What we have" (i.e., what started the uni/multiverse in the first place) has always existed and we were created from that.
Same idea, works both ways, God or "whatever started the universe" are interchangeable when it comes to this concept..
Following your logic ("what we have has always existed") God does not need a creator or to be created in order for Him to exist. So, no turtles all the way down. It can start AT God.
But we can show our existence. We can't show the existence of a god, there is no evidence which stands up to scrutiny. As a result, there is no reason to accept the claim of that existence. The fallacy is known as "special pleading."
But we can show our existence. We can't show the existence of a god, there is no evidence which stands up to scrutiny. As a result, there is no reason to accept the claim of that existence. The fallacy is known as "special pleading."
This thread is going on circles now. I've already said that there are people who can tell you they've confirmed the existence of God in this thread and I've defended how.
I've also said that the atheists' version of whatever they think God isn't is too constrictive and that eventually (though prob not within any of our lifetimes) it's going to be proved that the origins of universe and God are the same thing.
It's not "special pleading" because I'm not asking for special exceptions to be made in the case of God. The exact same argument "We're exist because something else existed before us" works for both God and Multiverses. You can't prove either exist, at least, not a way where you would be satisfied with the "proof".
No. It is entirely possible that nothing exists, whether we perceive that it does or not. If we don't exist, then our perceptions of reality are meaningless anyhow.
No. It is entirely possible that nothing exists, whether we perceive that it does or not. If we don't exist, then our perceptions of reality are meaningless anyhow.
I think it's a complete waste of time to argue whether we exist. If you don't agree, just pretend this response doesn't exist.
Yeah, funny how people get annoyed when they are clearly, plainly and openly being outright lied to by you isn't it?
Still, I am glad you made this response. It shows that what you are here for, and what makes you smile, is annoying people. You are here to troll, and you pretty much admit it in posts like this.
It's not something anyone can do to you or for you or show you how to do. It's like falling in love. People fall in love with others for different reasons. I can tell you why I love my bf, but that's not going to make YOU fall in love with him and I can't provide incontrovertible evidence that I'm in love. Also, just because I love my bf, it's not going to show you how to fall in love with someone.
So you're saying god is just a feeling which exists only in your mind.
Quote:
Everyone's relationship with God is personal and everyone experiences it a little differently. I can't anymore show you how to have a relationship with Him anymore than I can introduce you to a stranger and command you to fall in love with them. It's something a person has to come to own their own.
In other words, the evidence for god is nothing like radio waves. In that case, you should probably drop the analogy you used earlier in the thread.
It's weird. Believers spend a whole lot of time telling us we're mistaken about what god is, how we're missing the evidence, how we misunderstand this and that about it. OK, great. But when it comes down to it, they can't seem to give any concrete information about it either. It's like no one understands why we should believe - or even what it is we're supposed to believe in. But then theists follow that up by telling people who don't believe how it's the non-believers fault for not being able to believe in something which makes no sense to anyone involved.
Always does. The unstoppable force of science its the immovable object of religion.
Quote:
I've already said that there are people who can tell you they've confirmed the existence of God in this thread and I've defended how.
Link to your post, please. I have at least nine pages of responses to look through for that.
Quote:
I've also said that the atheists' version of whatever they think God isn't is too constrictive and that eventually (though prob not within any of our lifetimes) it's going to be proved that the origins of universe and God are the same thing.
Assuming an origin event of matter. And assuming you can actually get a definition of god(s) in the first place.
Quote:
It's not "special pleading" because I'm not asking for special exceptions to be made in the case of God. The exact same argument "We're exist because something else existed before us" works for both God and Multiverses. You can't prove either exist, at least, not a way where you would be satisfied with the "proof".
That's the point. Definitions of gods always involved some kind of sentience--something that has yet to be shown. Some kind of existence before our own does not demand "god did it." And since all we do know is that we exist here, and have for some 14.5 billion years or so, that's all we have to go on. Anything else is speculation and not worthy of acceptance without evidence.
It's weird. Believers spend a whole lot of time telling us we're mistaken about what god is, how we're missing the evidence, how we misunderstand this and that about it. OK, great. But when it comes down to it, they can't seem to give any concrete information about it either. It's like no one understands why we should believe - or even what it is we're supposed to believe in. But then theists follow that up by telling people who don't believe how it's the non-believers fault for not being able to believe in something which makes no sense to anyone involved.
So you're saying god is just a feeling which exists only in your mind.
Anger, happiness, sadness, thoughts all exist "only in your mind". Does that make them any less real?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
In other words, the evidence for god is nothing like radio waves. In that case, you should probably drop the analogy you used earlier in the thread.
It's weird. Believers spend a whole lot of time telling us we're mistaken about what god is, how we're missing the evidence, how we misunderstand this and that about it. OK, great. But when it comes down to it, they can't seem to give any concrete information about it either. It's like no one understands why we should believe - or even what it is we're supposed to believe in. But then theists follow that up by telling people who don't believe how it's the non-believers fault for not being able to believe in something which makes no sense to anyone involved.
In the sense that you need a radio to pick up radio waves and if you have a broken or turned off radio, you can't hear the waves, it's exactly like that.
There is "tangible" information that proves the evidence of God, if you believe in feelings, you can find God.
I think the frustration for atheists is that God is not like the President of the United States, as in He's not a person that you can actually see and touch. He's something more pervasive, that transcends space and time and I think the issue that atheists have is that they're not able to think outside of the box. They can't see beyond the very narrow scope of here and now when science itself has proved that there's so much more going on than what we can visibly see and 95% of what is out there to discover has been outside the realm of our understanding and comprehension.
Atheists want God to be what they want him to be, a humanoid who is omnipotent and simultaneously brings harmony, peace and prosperity to every living thing. He is not that, and maybe they're right in the sense that what they want God to be doesn't exist. In actuality, God is much bigger and way more complex than that and so they throw the baby out with the bathwater. They think because God isn't what they want Him to be that he must not exist at all.
Definitions of gods always involved some kind of sentience--something that has yet to be shown.
well...it has been shown to many. What you mean is that it has yet to be shown to you in a way that you'll accept as proof. You can see my above post for a more thorough explanation.
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.
I've already said that there are people who can tell you they've confirmed the existence of God in this thread and I've defended how. 
