The God Thread

[Sharpshooter]

In any case. 
 

Prove that there’s a god.

 

Any god. 
 

 

 

[Ilunga]

53 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

 

How much do you know about the Abrahamic religions and their relations and differences with each other?

 

 

 

I have read the Bible both testaments 3 times.

The Qur'an twice, English translation.

I am told some of it is lost in translation.

 

They like Judaism are Abrahamic religions.

Two dudes that walked into the wilderness and a god supposedly communicated with them.

A few key differences in regards to some figures, Jesus, Mary and others. 

The Qu'ran is what one would describe as a bit more spiritually orientated.

 

All three have " clerics " that like to argue about the meaning of the words/ allegories contained in the texts. 

 

The bible has many sources/ authors, the Qu'ran just one.

 

 

I could post a lot more however if you are really interested you should check them out.

The study of comparative religion is interesting.

 

[Joe King]

If there is truly a God could someone convince them to show them self.

By doing so it would more than likely convince a lot if not all evil doers to adjust their life of evil to one of good and kind. It would be nice if God would speak to all of us and not just the pope. The current system of blind faith is not working.

I say humans need a good talking to.

[Playoff Beered]

11 hours ago, Quaz said:

Both sides are making claims so both sides have to provide evidence.

[Playoff Beered]

8 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

How much do you know about the Abrahamic religions and their relations and differences with each other?

 

7 hours ago, Ilunga said:

I have read the Bible both testaments 3 times.

The Qur'an twice, English translation.

I am told some of it is lost in translation.

 

They like Judaism are Abrahamic religions.

Two dudes that walked into the wilderness and a god supposedly communicated with them.

A few key differences in regards to some figures, Jesus, Mary and others. 

The Qu'ran is what one would describe as a bit more spiritually orientated.

 

All three have " clerics " that like to argue about the meaning of the words/ allegories contained in the texts. 

 

The bible has many sources/ authors, the Qu'ran just one.

 

I could post a lot more however if you are really interested you should check them out.

The study of comparative religion is interesting.

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Playoff Beered

[Jester13]

11 hours ago, Quaz said:

Not going down that road with people here.  As I mentioned in another post, these conversations are useless.
I simply responded to a post about the Epicurean Paradox.

If you're actually interested, then here is a link to read through.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

I'll respond to this link:

 

The cosmological argument is only solid if the premise is accepted: the universe has a cause, and that cause is God. I'd argue that we shouldn't accept this premise, as there is no need to assume that a theistic God is the creator, especially when we don't have evidence for such. Claiming that the universe was created by God is a big leap of faith and quickly turns into infinite regression: Who created God? 

 

The universe's creation can imply natural or physical causes without introducing a deity.

 

Regarding moral values and duties, claiming that these can only be derived from God is incorrect, as there are plenty of evolutionary and cultural counterarguments that clearly show morals and values can be based in human well-being and cooperation for the longevity of our species. They do not need to be handed down from above but rather naturally created by our species as we acquire knowledge about the world - for example: ethical assisted dying.

 

Regarding the teleological argument, I'd say this is based in ignorance: just because we can't yet explain certain fine-tuning elements of the universe does not imply a divine being must have gone and done it. There are many questions about the universe that we have answered with natural or physical causes over human history, closing the gap of religion through scientific discovery. Some propose other answers, such as the multiverse, but again, it's important to keep an open mind on natural or physical causes rather than simply claiming: "God gone and done it."

 

Regarding the ontological argument, just because we an conceive of a supernatural being that created the universe does not mean it's possible for such a being to exist. I can conceive of all kinds of things, such as Zeus being the cause of lightning bolts raining down from the sky, but we should never listen to me when I say that Zeus exists because I can conceive of him. Hume and Kant have much to say about the ontological argument that I won't get into. 

 

Here's the thing: any religious arguments for the existence of personal God can be - have been! - quite easily refuted. Unfortunately, non-believers are always left with a big bowl of irony when religious minds say, "You're just close-minded!" No, non-believers are the opposite of close-minded individuals: we're the ones who use science, logic, and reason to discover and explain away woo woo as answers for natural or physical causes. It's the religious mind that is closed, and it's this close-mindedness that is a defence mechanism to protect the conflict going on inside when presented with evidence.

[Quaz]

12 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Here's the thing: any religious arguments for the existence of personal God can be - have been! - quite easily refuted.

Damn it, I didn't want to get too far into the weeds on this, but I'll post this and be done with this topic.

I understand that some here believe these questions have been definitively addressed, but it's crucial to recognize that scholars (university professors in relevant fields) continue to actively debate these arguments.  The involvement of some of the world's brightest minds indicates that these arguments cannot be handwaved away.

I will link these easily digestible animated videos for each of the points mentioned in the article.

1.  The Cosmological Argument
 

2.  Kalam Cosmological Argument (2 parts)
 

and...
 

3. The Moral Argument
 

4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
 

5.  The Ontological Argument
 

Before I conclude my participation in this thread, I'd like to stress the importance of approaching the subject of God's existence with sincerity.  Dismissing it with caricatures or humorous responses doesn't lead to a meaningful engagement with the topic.

Exploring the existence of God typically requires in-depth argumentation, proper examination of evidence, and philosophical analysis.  For those genuinely interested, I recommend visiting the 'reasonablefaith' website and joining their forums.

Enjoy the journey, everyone.

[Jester13]

1 minute ago, Quaz said:

Damn it, I didn't want to get too far into the weeds on this, but I'll post this and be done with this topic.

I understand that some here believe these questions have been definitively addressed, but it's crucial to recognize that scholars (university professors in relevant fields) continue to actively debate these arguments.  The involvement of some of the world's brightest minds indicates that these arguments cannot be handwaved away.

I will link these easily digestible animated videos for each of the points mentioned in the article.

1.  The Cosmological Argument
 

2.  Kalam Cosmological Argument (2 parts)
 

and...
 

3. The Moral Argument
 

4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
 

5.  The Ontological Argument
 

Before I conclude my participation in this thread, I'd like to stress the importance of approaching the subject of God's existence with sincerity.  Dismissing it with caricatures or humorous responses doesn't lead to a meaningful engagement with the topic.

Exploring the existence of God typically requires in-depth argumentation, proper examination of evidence, and philosophical analysis.  For those genuinely interested, I recommend visiting the 'reasonablefaith' website and joining their forums.

Enjoy the journey, everyone.

I addressed all this in my response. They're still being "debated" because there's still the classic resistance, dodging, and deflection when presented with solid logical and scientific rebuttals. If you have something to add as a response rather than reposting the arguments in a different format, I'm here for that. 

[Bob Long]

16 hours ago, Alflives said:

Who were those crazies that all committed suicide when the comet Hale Bop passed by? I remember they were all wearing Nikes. We’re they God fearing or alien weirdo types? 

 

now there's some marketing. 

[Bob Long]

11 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

In any case. 
 

Prove that there’s a god.

 

Any god. 
 

 

 

 

 

I'll concede that there is a prime mover. So just tell me which is the right one. 

 

[Optimist Prime]

12 hours ago, Ilunga said:

 

I have read the Bible both testaments 3 times.

The Qur'an twice, English translation.

I am told some of it is lost in translation.

 

They like Judaism are Abrahamic religions.

Two dudes that walked into the wilderness and a god supposedly communicated with them.

A few key differences in regards to some figures, Jesus, Mary and others. 

The Qu'ran is what one would describe as a bit more spiritually orientated.

 

All three have " clerics " that like to argue about the meaning of the words/ allegories contained in the texts. 

 

The bible has many sources/ authors, the Qu'ran just one.

 

 

I could post a lot more however if you are really interested you should check them out.

The study of comparative religion is interesting.

 

the Quran though, in my understanding, was not written by their prophet, whose name or likeness shall not be posted by me as i guess that is death to me, haha, but i digress...

The Quran was compiled after his nightflight to venus and ultimate death by those who claimed to know him or hear him speak. It was compiled by his followers and basically voted in each scrap of stuff much like the Council of Nicea did in the 1200s to decide what of the scriptures would become 'the bible' as we now know it. 

If you believe or not in god or gods: these things historically happened. We know that in the 1200's the bible as largely know it today was compiled by votes of men in a conclave who decided for us what we would consider holy words today. 1200 years after the reported death of a man named Jesus al Nazareni.

 

This is why even among Muslims there are some 28 factions, roughly split in two or three main spheres and the main two are at odds with each other worse than the extremists are at odds with the west. 

[Optimist Prime]

THis just popped into a completely different social media feed of mine that I rarely post in..clearly the data harvesting is working as intended alexa/google assistant.

[Mac]

Many tiny people in here saying God should reveal themselves to them lol. How sad.

 

If there is a god, it won't reveal itself so some pathetic self whining human...that is certain.

 

I don't believe there is some old white haired old man that created everything. But I do believe in eternal consciousness. None of us will ever know lol.

[Optimist Prime]

Yesterday, upon the stair,

I met a man who wasn't there

He wasn't there again today

I wish, I wish he'd go away...

 

When I came home last night at three

The man was waiting there for me

But when I looked around the hall

I couldn't see him there at all!

Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!

Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door... (slam!)

 

Last night I saw upon the stair

A little man who wasn't there

He wasn't there again today

Oh, how I wish he'd go away...

[Optimist Prime]

 

[Ilunga]

12 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

the Quran though, in my understanding, was not written by their prophet, whose name or likeness shall not be posted by me as i guess that is death to me, haha, but i digress...

The Quran was compiled after his nightflight to venus and ultimate death by those who claimed to know him or hear him speak. It was compiled by his followers and basically voted in each scrap of stuff much like the Council of Nicea did in the 1200s to decide what of the scriptures would become 'the bible' as we now know it. 

If you believe or not in god or gods: these things historically happened. We know that in the 1200's the bible as largely know it today was compiled by votes of men in a conclave who decided for us what we would consider holy words today. 1200 years after the reported death of a man named Jesus al Nazareni.

 

This is why even among Muslims there are some 28 factions, roughly split in two or three main spheres and the main two are at odds with each other worse than the extremists are at odds with the west. 

 

You are indeed correct, Abu Bakr is credited by many Muslim scholars.

 

Ali ibn Abi Talib is credited by Shia scholars. 

 

The council of Nicea in AD 325, was where the council established the equality of the Father, Son and the holy spirit. 

 

The 66 books of the bible was decided at the council of Hippo, in AD 393.

It was affirmed at the council of Carthage in AD 397.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Ilunga

[Optimist Prime]

4 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

 

You are indeed correct, Abu Bakr is credited by many Muslim scholars.

 

Ali ibn Abi Talib is credited by Shia scholars. 

 

The council of Nicea in AD 325, was where the council established the equality of the Father, Son and the holy spirit. 

 

The 66 books of the bible was decided at the council of Hippo, in AD 383.

It was affirmed at the council of Carthage in AD 397.

Many thank yous on the dates, I was riffing from memory, bad one, turns out. More of a broad strokes thinker than a date memorizer. Cheers

Oh my, and it was Hippo good catch. That old Anglican Nicean Creed which was an odd nod to the catholics, confused me.

[Ilunga]

Just now, Optimist Prime said:

Many thank hous on the dates, I was riffing from memory, bad one, turns out. More of a brand strokes thinker than a date memorizer. Cheers

 

No worries my friend.

 

[Ilunga]

On 10/8/2023 at 5:21 PM, Sharpshooter said:

In any case. 
 

Prove that there’s a god.

 

Any god. 
 

 

 

 

Here you go 

 

 

 

He actually lives in the same place my oldest friends son lives, Byron Bay.

 

 

[Ilunga]

17 hours ago, Jester13 said:

I'll respond to this link:

 

The cosmological argument is only solid if the premise is accepted: the universe has a cause, and that cause is God. I'd argue that we shouldn't accept this premise, as there is no need to assume that a theistic God is the creator, especially when we don't have evidence for such. Claiming that the universe was created by God is a big leap of faith and quickly turns into infinite regression: Who created God? 

 

The universe's creation can imply natural or physical causes without introducing a deity.

 

Regarding moral values and duties, claiming that these can only be derived from God is incorrect, as there are plenty of evolutionary and cultural counterarguments that clearly show morals and values can be based in human well-being and cooperation for the longevity of our species. They do not need to be handed down from above but rather naturally created by our species as we acquire knowledge about the world - for example: ethical assisted dying.

 

Regarding the teleological argument, I'd say this is based in ignorance: just because we can't yet explain certain fine-tuning elements of the universe does not imply a divine being must have gone and done it. There are many questions about the universe that we have answered with natural or physical causes over human history, closing the gap of religion through scientific discovery. Some propose other answers, such as the multiverse, but again, it's important to keep an open mind on natural or physical causes rather than simply claiming: "God gone and done it."

 

Regarding the ontological argument, just because we an conceive of a supernatural being that created the universe does not mean it's possible for such a being to exist. I can conceive of all kinds of things, such as Zeus being the cause of lightning bolts raining down from the sky, but we should never listen to me when I say that Zeus exists because I can conceive of him. Hume and Kant have much to say about the ontological argument that I won't get into. 

 

Here's the thing: any religious arguments for the existence of personal God can be - have been! - quite easily refuted. Unfortunately, non-believers are always left with a big bowl of irony when religious minds say, "You're just close-minded!" No, non-believers are the opposite of close-minded individuals: we're the ones who use science, logic, and reason to discover and explain away woo woo as answers for natural or physical causes. It's the religious mind that is closed, and it's this close-mindedness that is a defence mechanism to protect the conflict going on inside when presented with evidence.

 

I really respect your input my friend, this thread is better for your presence.

Your posts are informative and for the most part on point.

However you make some assumptions that are simply not true. 

 

Not all religious people have " conflict going on inside when presented with evidence " 

 

There is no evidence, only the arguments that are used in this thread.

 

 

Evil, because evil exists god cannot be all powerful and good.

 

Pain, because pain and bad $hit in all its forms exist,he ain't a all powerful and loving god.

 

Injustice, much the same, a loving god would not allow injustice. 

 

Multiplicity, lots of gods, all different, which if any are the one God.

 

 

A real rary that no one has brought up 

 

Simplicity, God cannot have any spatial or temporal parts. 

God cannot have any intrinsic accidental properties. 

There cannot be any real distinction between one essential property and another in gods nature.

There cannot be any real distinction between essence and existence in god.

[Jester13]

5 hours ago, Ilunga said:

 

I really respect your input my friend, this thread is better for your presence.

Your posts are informative and for the most part on point.

However you make some assumptions that are simply not true. 

 

Not all religious people have " conflict going on inside when presented with evidence " 

 

There is no evidence, only the arguments that are used in this thread.

 

 

Evil, because evil exists god cannot be all powerful and good.

 

Pain, because pain and bad $hit in all its forms exist,he ain't a all powerful and loving god.

 

Injustice, much the same, a loving god would not allow injustice. 

 

Multiplicity, lots of gods, all different, which if any are the one God.

 

 

A real rary that no one has brought up 

 

Simplicity, God cannot have any spatial or temporal parts. 

God cannot have any intrinsic accidental properties. 

There cannot be any real distinction between one essential property and another in gods nature.

There cannot be any real distinction between essence and existence in god.

There's a moment in every conversation where a believer is presented with something that they have no response to, and they then proceed to practice mental gymnastics to get out of the conflict in their beliefs, so they resort to a dodge, deflection, or outright ghosting, all so they don't have to confront the conflict and possibly admit a hard truth to themselves. It has happened many, many times in this thread. Here are some major points of evidence presented (you've already pointed some of them out):

 

The problem of evil

Abscence of evidence

Argument of incoherence

Evolution and natural explanations

Cultural and historical influences

Problem of divine hiddenness 

 

Using logic, reason, and science are tools of evidence for the nonexistence of God. 

[Optimist Prime]

Looking at you Hamas.

[TheBearded1]

for all your Biblical scholars! 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIL2-LcT0Ow

 

[Optimist Prime]

Just saw this now over coffee, but it speaks to my points precisely.

[Junkyard Dog]

On 10/7/2023 at 11:38 PM, Ilunga said:

 

I have read the Bible both testaments 3 times.

The Qur'an twice, English translation.

I am told some of it is lost in translation.

 

They like Judaism are Abrahamic religions.

Two dudes that walked into the wilderness and a god supposedly communicated with them.

A few key differences in regards to some figures, Jesus, Mary and others. 

The Qu'ran is what one would describe as a bit more spiritually orientated.

 

All three have " clerics " that like to argue about the meaning of the words/ allegories contained in the texts. 

 

The bible has many sources/ authors, the Qu'ran just one.

 

 

I could post a lot more however if you are really interested you should check them out.

The study of comparative religion is interesting.

 

 
I don’t mind learning about religion as it’s ingrained into so much culture and history throughout the world. I mean over 80% of the world believes in some higher power which is crazy to think. 
 

You have any studies in particular or have heard any conversations between different religious leaders/figures?
 

I also enjoy philosophy. That kind of turned me away from being religious. Well… that and the one time my father tried to put me in church pre-school and I ended up throwing a chair at the teacher on my first day.