Why should I believe in the God?

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I am so glad there are many. If you would lay me a few of them.
list me a few instances of proofs of deity's actual existence...
Evidence*, not proof. Only with enough evidence may one have proof for anything. Same principle applies here.

Anselm's ontological argument, Platinga's modal ontology, Kalam, Leibniz's contingency, Paley's watchmaker, fine-tuning arguments, arguments from biological information, arguments from probability - just to name a few.

Why though? No one said the most high must be fair...
True, I just don't believe in such a "high one" when there are better solutions out there.
 

HashiraMadara

Active member
Elite
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
6,683
Kin
137💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Evidence*, not proof. Only with enough evidence may one have proof for anything. Same principle applies here.

Anselm's ontological argument, Platinga's modal ontology, Kalam, Leibniz's contingency, Paley's watchmaker, fine-tuning arguments, arguments from biological information, arguments from probability - just to name a few.



True, I just don't believe in such a "high one" when there are better solutions out there.
I know all except Kalam, I will read it now. But bro these are arguments :sdo: I need an actual proof.

These arguments are ontologically, and always start with an existing theory or current understanding of existence. I will forever have doubts of a diet's existence if I base my beliefs solely on argumenta material.
 

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I know all except Kalam, I will read it now. But bro these are arguments :sdo: I need an actual proof.

These arguments are ontologically, and always start with an existing theory or current understanding of existence. I will forever have doubts of a diet's existence if I base my beliefs solely on argumenta material.
If I got it right, you find these evidences unappealing because they're arguments and because they're based on what we currently know? That's some outrageous reasoning you've got there. For one, an argument is simply what one uses to argue for something. So how is one supposed to argue without using arguments? Either way, you seem to think that because something is an argument it rests solely on one's speculative efforts without any connection to the real world. This is very deluded. Of all the arguments I've listed only the first 2 (the ontological ones) rest solely on "mind".

Others are grounded in our observations of the world that surrounds us. The cosmological ones are tied to cosmology, the teleological ones are tied to things like evolution, DNA and other stuff that is what would first bump into one's mind when someone says the word "science". You have no basis to write them all off as ontological.

Second, the fact that it is our current understanding that is taken as a basis of these arguments is only more of a reason to accept them rather then throw them away. On what should we act if not our reasoning and convictions? Is a scientist deluded for making an experiment based on what we know so far? Surely, you don't think scientists should just abandon what they know because they can't guarantee they know it all?

I said specifically in my previous reply "with our current knowledge". Ofcourse there is a possibility that we'll discover something that cripples all we knew but until such a thing actually happens what reason do we have to believe it will happen? This is a matter of how God fits into the current sphere of knowledge we hold, not how he would fit if all we knew was false.
 

SZiaee

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,163
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I question things such as religion when it comes to the day we die. Each of us are shaped by our surroundings.

If I'm born into a family which is follows a faith of any religion, I would most likely follow that religion. Most religions tell us that their faith is the one that sends us to Heaven (guaranteed that you didn't sin much and the types of sins/while following the faith in detail more or less). So does God judge us based on something we can't control (the families we are born in?), or is this something else?
God doesn't expect anything more than he gave us ... Let me give you an example :
You plant two seeds (exactly the same) ; one in a dry environment and bad soil and the other one in a wet environment and good soil ..... The first becomes a bud and then dies and the other one becomes a tree ... I'll question you : Which one grew better ???
The answer : The seeds were exactly the same ... So they are equal ...
And the same goes for God .
 

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
God doesn't expect anything more than he gave us ... Let me give you an example :
You plant two seeds (exactly the same) ; one in a dry environment and bad soil and the other one in a wet environment and good soil ..... The first becomes a bud and then dies and the other one becomes a tree ... I'll question you : Which one grew better ???
The answer : The seeds were exactly the same ... So they are equal ...
And the same goes for God .
That's not really helping your case as the analogy implies that God purposely "planted" you on bad ground so you'd die. Doesn't make much difference...
 

SZiaee

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,163
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
That's not really helping your case as the analogy implies that God purposely "planted" you on bad ground so you'd die. Doesn't make much difference...
Let me explain it a little more :
Plant B in a really bad situation becomes a bud ... And plant A in a good situation becomes a tree ....... I'll say they both are equal ...
So God doesn't expect anyone to become more than the abilities he gave them .... I mean ; he created you in a bad situation and doesn't expect you to become better than a person created in a good situation ...
So it makes difference .
 

HashiraMadara

Active member
Elite
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
6,683
Kin
137💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
If I got it right, you find these evidences unappealing because they're arguments and because they're based on what we currently know? That's some outrageous reasoning you've got there. For one, an argument is simply what one uses to argue for something. So how is one supposed to argue without using arguments? Either way, you seem to think that because something is an argument it rests solely on one's speculative efforts without any connection to the real world. This is very deluded. Of all the arguments I've listed only the first 2 (the ontological ones) rest solely on "mind".

Others are grounded in our observations of the world that surrounds us. The cosmological ones are tied to cosmology, the teleological ones are tied to things like evolution, DNA and other stuff that is what would first bump into one's mind when someone says the word "science". You have no basis to write them all off as ontological.

Second, the fact that it is our current understanding that is taken as a basis of these arguments is only more of a reason to accept them rather then throw them away. On what should we act if not our reasoning and convictions? Is a scientist deluded for making an experiment based on what we know so far? Surely, you don't think scientists should just abandon what they know because they can't guarantee they know it all?

I said specifically in my previous reply "with our current knowledge". Of course there is a possibility that we'll discover something that cripples all we knew but until such a thing actually happens what reason do we have to believe it will happen? This is a matter of how God fits into the current sphere of knowledge we hold, not how he would fit if all we knew was false.
You hit it right on the money. Kudus I didn't need to re explain my self. You answered your self. The "Current understand" means evolving wheel of knowledge, I believe you remember my predicament in the RELIGION thread. You simply a "me" who hasn't lost hope yet. Why: it's just impossible not strongly believe in something yet you know it may be crippled before hand.

Look at the higgs boson case for example, it took over 50 years of the man's career and CERN to fully accept it as an legitimate hadron :sdo:. So even science it self varies according to reputation as well... <== going on with this an argument based on this with no intricate connection to the being it self does not qualify to be even made evidence. The rightful word for them is "speculations"...
 
Last edited:

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
You hit it right on the money. Kudus I didn't need to re explain my self. You answered your self. The "Current understand" means evolving wheel of knowledge, I believe you remember my predicament in the RELIGION thread. You simply a "me" who hasn't lost hope yet. Why: it's just impossible not strongly believe in something yet you know it may be crippled before hand.
Says who? I strongly believe there is a God despite the fact that there is a chance I'm wrong. The crucial thing you missed here is the probability of me being wrong. Just because there is a far-fetched chance of something being wrong the notion is still highly probable and one would be more reasonable to accept it.

For example, let's say gravity isn't real but actual invisible gremlins who pull everything down. It's not impossible, but it is completely incompatible with everything we know, thus the probability of it being true falls to the level of irrelevancy. Similarly, if we have a good case for God even if there is a chance that this case is wrong, until something happens that would make the case more improbable than probable then there is no reason for me to drop it.

Look at the higgs boson case for example, it took over 50 years of the man's career and CERN to fully accept it as an legitimate hadron :sdo:. So even science it self varies according to reputation as well... <== going on with this an argument based on this with no intricate connection to the being it self does not qualify to be even made evidence. The rightful word for them is "speculations"...
Speculations? A weird word to use as it implies believing something without evidence, but evidence is exactly what is being talked about here. Arguments aren't speculations, they're evidence. The only thing that could be a speculation is a belief in God, but only if there were no arguments for it (ie evidence). These arguments I've listed abide with our current knowledge, are logically consistent, haven't been demonstrated as false, are more probable than not and as such we have a good reason to consider them true.

Now we're getting to the field of epistemology and what constitutes as knowledge, so I'd rather not go that far. If we were to act as you propose to any topic, we would arrive at a conclusion that we know nothing (as there is always a chance of the opposite being true, no matter how improbable). To avoid this ridiculous conclusion we must take into account the probability of something being true and act according to that.
 

HashiraMadara

Active member
Elite
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
6,683
Kin
137💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Says who? I strongly believe there is a God despite the fact that there is a chance I'm wrong. The crucial thing you missed here is the probability of me being wrong. Just because there is a far-fetched chance of something being wrong the notion is still highly probable and one would be more reasonable to accept it.

For example, let's say gravity isn't real but actual invisible gremlins who pull everything down. It's not impossible, but it is completely incompatible with everything we know, thus the probability of it being true falls to the level of irrelevancy. Similarly, if we have a good case for God even if there is a chance that this case is wrong, until something happens that would make the case more improbable than probable then there is no reason for me to drop it.

My friend you are wrong :|. You are making me do something I hate to do, proof by contradiction:
I am sure with your knowledge you are familiar with the relationship of Mathematics and Physics relations and therefore STRINGS(God I hate this dreadful theory)...

We start with a simple notion: photons act like particles(quantised) and then sometimes they behave waves(red shift) and sometimes weirdly act like both :sdo:. What would you get if you make a fusion of the 2. A string <= BOOM a theory is born...

*"The starting point for string theory is the idea that the point-like particles of particle physics can also be modeled as one-dimensional objects called strings"
*"In a given version of string theory, there is only one kind of string, which may look like a small loop or segment of ordinary string, and it can vibrate in different ways."
*"On distance scales larger than the string scale, a string will look just like an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the string."

given the above, there 1 string exist that carries a quantised gravity hence its name "graviton".

One may complain about the whim at which one gives a string a property but superstring unify them all. With the help of M-theory and Maxwell's equation... using the P-branes of course
You must be registered for see images

For some vector potential A and Normal Force given F = Ad for an external derivative d. v is a scale potential of V.


you will notice mathematically you can reach the same state using a P-brane plus 1
"vector potential A that is a p+1-form. Then F is a p+2-form, v is a d-form "
*F is a (d-p-2)-form, and d*F is a (d-p-1)-form. (Once again, the subscripts are just to indicate the degree of the differential form.)
You must be registered for see images



Now then, this theory seems flawless, and seem to solve the mystery of "quantum gravity" wouldn't you say? WRONG as flawless as it is, it brings in a universe of indefinite age, which even Alan Guth admits to not like. The problem then is "strength in numbers" everything then is numbers with no materialistic proofs nor testing as your "God proving" arguments meaning they are no science and are just philosophy....




Speculations? A weird word to use as it implies believing something without evidence, but evidence is exactly what is being talked about here. Arguments aren't speculations, they're evidence. The only thing that could be a speculation is a belief in God, but only if there were no arguments for it (ie evidence). These arguments I've listed abide with our current knowledge, are logically consistent, haven't been demonstrated as false, are more probable than not and as such we have a good reason to consider them true.

Now we're getting to the field of epistemology and what constitutes as knowledge, so I'd rather not go that far. If we were to act as you propose to any topic, we would arrive at a conclusion that we know nothing (as there is always a chance of the opposite being true, no matter how improbable). To avoid this ridiculous conclusion we must take into account the probability of something being true and act according to that.
Where are you getting the idea that an argument with no experimental bases can be concluded as being "more probable"... <== If such was possible there would be no difference between science and philosophy
 
Last edited:

Avani

Supreme
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
20,234
Kin
5,835💸
Kumi
497💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
..Can you really describe "him" using the same criteria as you use for the people or the world you can see and know? There is no end to these arguments.
Every objection you made assumes that the creator shares the same nature of the creation. I would have problems believing that.
I don't think you read it correctly. You mostly paraphrased what I said.

You're still here? Anyway, re-read my post, I didn't say Deism claims atheist can't be saved (as if such a diety would care about whether you believe in it or not).
Well, an atheist could say there is no evidence, but they'd be lying. There's a plethora of good arguments (raging from teleological to ontological in nature) and evidence that has yet to be convincingly explained away by the atheist camps with the light of modern science only making things better for the believer.
I'm simply here to point at problematic parts in the posts I read. Like I just highlighted in bold this time. ;) Feel free to link me the post with actual scientific evidence if someone posts that.
 

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
My friend you are wrong :|. You are making me do something I hate to do, proof by contradiction:
I am sure with your knowledge you are familiar with the relationship of Mathematics and Physics relations and therefore STRINGS(God I hate this dreadful theory)...

We start with a simple notion: photons act like particles(quantised) and then sometimes they behave waves(red shift) and sometimes weirdly act like both :sdo:. What would you get if you make a fusion of the 2. A string <= BOOM a theory is born...

*"The starting point for string theory is the idea that the point-like particles of particle physics can also be modeled as one-dimensional objects called strings"
*"In a given version of string theory, there is only one kind of string, which may look like a small loop or segment of ordinary string, and it can vibrate in different ways."
*"On distance scales larger than the string scale, a string will look just like an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the string."

given the above, there 1 string exist that carries a quantised gravity hence its name "graviton".

One may complain about the whim at which one gives a string a property but superstring unify them all. With the help of M-theory and Maxwell's equation... using the P-branes of course
You must be registered for see images

For some vector potential A and Normal Force given F = Ad for an external derivative d. v is a scale potential of V.


you will notice mathematically you can reach the same state using a P-brane plus 1
"vector potential A that is a p+1-form. Then F is a p+2-form, v is a d-form "
*F is a (d-p-2)-form, and d*F is a (d-p-1)-form. (Once again, the subscripts are just to indicate the degree of the differential form.)
You must be registered for see images



Now then, this theory seems flawless, and seem to solve the mystery of "quantum gravity" wouldn't you say? WRONG as flawless as it is, it brings in a universe of indefinite age, which even Alan Guth admits to not like. The problem then is "strength in numbers" everything then is numbers with no materialistic proofs nor testing as your "God proving" arguments meaning they are no science and are just philosophy....
This does absolutely nothing to counter my point. Ofcourse these arguments are philosophical what's the problem with that?

Where are you getting the idea that an argument with no experimental bases can be concluded as being "more probable"... <== If such was possible there would be no difference between science and philosophy
Why do you think there is no basis for an argument? What argument are you talking about anyway? Stop talking in such a vague manner because you're not saying anything at all.
 

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Kin
306💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I'm simply here to point at problematic parts in the posts I read. Like I just highlighted in bold this time. ;) Feel free to link me the post with actual scientific evidence if someone posts that.
There are problems in your posts but you tend to "sleep them away" as far as I see... The assumption you made here is that I was talking about scientific evidence in specific, therefore taking a materialistic approach to knowledge, which automatically leaves no room for a debate on topics that aren't related to the material.

Though there certainly is scientific evidence for a creator and I've already listed some before.
 

HashiraMadara

Active member
Elite
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
6,683
Kin
137💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
This does absolutely nothing to counter my point. Ofcourse these arguments are philosophical what's the problem with that?



Why do you think there is no basis for an argument? What argument are you talking about anyway? Stop talking in such a vague manner because you're not saying anything at all.
Lool Got ya, see how it feels. You throw me a list with close to no explanation at all and you expect a clear answer :sdo:



MY POINT IS WHEN AN ARGUMENT IS BASED ON NON TESTABLE STUFF, never say "it being wrong is improbable" :sdo: as the string theory I just demonstrated. You are more wrong than right since you posses no testable fundamentals...

So I am like her below still waiting on such post.

Feel free to link me the post with actual scientific evidence if someone posts that.
 
Last edited:

HashiraMadara

Active member
Elite
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
6,683
Kin
137💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
There are problems in your posts but you tend to "sleep them away" as far as I see... The assumption you made here is that I was talking about scientific evidence in specific, therefore taking a materialistic approach to knowledge, which automatically leaves no room for a debate on topics that aren't related to the material.

Though there certainly is scientific evidence for a creator and I've already listed some before.
Scientific evidence like what? Please do tell, this time don't bring ontological arguments as I have made them not usable here...
post above
 

Avani

Supreme
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
20,234
Kin
5,835💸
Kumi
497💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
There are problems in your posts but you tend to "sleep them away" as far as I see... The assumption you made here is that I was talking about scientific evidence in specific, therefore taking a materialistic approach to knowledge, which automatically leaves no room for a debate on topics that aren't related to the material.

Though there certainly is scientific evidence for a creator and I've already listed some before.
Nope. I prefer not to lose sleep over this topic because it's a matter of 'belief' and interpretations and I don't have enough missionary zeal for such topics.

You say the atheist lie, atheists will say you lie, you find them unsalvagable, they don't think there is anything to be salvaged by forcing themselves to act as if they believe. It's a stalemate and something the God can handle himself if he is. In the grand scheme of universe, if he is all that worried over whether a random human on the Earth believes him or not, he is not much of a god.
 
Top