Curt's Invitation - Prove God Exists!

[CurtSibling]

I seem to remember an old argument that was basically saying that proving the existence of god is actually implying that god is within your intellectual grasp, and thus finite, which is a logical contradiction.
So basically people trying to prove that god exist better hope they do not succeed

Sheer brilliance!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If you cannot keep it impersonal, don't post.

Last warning, comedian.

.

it wasnt an insult, merely an obeservation

 

[CurtSibling]

it wasnt an insult, merely an obeservation

I don't care what it was - Keep on topic.

.

 

[CurtSibling]

We have had some really good answers, and some meaningless stuff.
So it is time for recap, in case people's attentions are wandering!

Prove to me your GOD exists! And why should we treat it as fact?

The rules:

(1) I want something that could be evidence, not just anecdotes and personal imaginings.

(2) I don't want unproductive answers like: 'It all takes faith'...That is copping out.

(3) I don't want the predictable 'Prove he doesn't exist' line. You are the believer, not me!

(4) If you think god is something in your personal mindspace...Share the insights with us!

(5) This thread is not about me or any poster, just go ahead and give evidence for us all.

(6) Evolution and creation can be used, but the thread is not about that issue.

(7) No bible quotes are to be used in place of intelligent arguments.

(8) I want a nice, clean and informative debate, no nastiness.

(9) If you cannot confront your own beliefs, do not take part.

.

 

[Perfection]

everyone has the right to their own opinion and beliefs, so yours in no more wrong than mine is

Even if mine involves putting live puppies through meat grinders?

The fact is, opinions matter!

 

[Masquerouge]

everyone has the right to their own opinion and beliefs, so yours in no more wrong than mine is

The belief that all opinions are of equal value will be the doom of Western democracies.

 

[ainwood]

If you cannot keep it impersonal, don't post.

Last warning, comedian.

.

Moderator Action: You are NOT a moderator, here.

Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[eyrei]

Whatever force started existence is god, or is at least so much greater than us that we might as well call it god. The ability to wrap our minds around either a finite universe or an infinite one is a mode of thought that is not available to us right now. To attempt to use logic to extrapolate the lack of a power that much greater than us is going to fail because of this fact. With enough knowledge, it is likely that god can be conceived of scientifically, but the fact that god may exist in an observable way would not make god any less divine.

 

[CurtSibling]

Whatever force started existence is god, or is at least so much greater than us that we might as well call it god. The ability to wrap our minds around either a finite universe or an infinite one is a mode of thought that is not available to us right now. To attempt to use logic to extrapolate the lack of a power that much greater than us is going to fail because of this fact. With enough knowledge, it is likely that god can be conceived of scientifically, but the fact that god may exist in an observable way would not make god any less divine.

Good post, Eyrei.

But that leads us to question what constitutes 'divine'.

If mankind reaches the point where a 'god' can be 'conceived of scientifically' -
Surely we are then ourselves, close to actual godhood? By our own standards.

.

 

[CurtSibling]

Moderator Action: You are NOT a moderator, here.

Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I warned him before I reported him.

I don't presume to do your job, sir.

.

 

[Kozmos]

Discussing moderator actions in public = warning/1 day ban

*flees*

 

[CurtSibling]

I am not discussing or arguing with Ainwood's ruling, I am explaining myself.

I think the mods know I have respect for their credo.

.

 

[nihilistic]

Whatever force started existence is god, or is at least so much greater than us that we might as well call it god. The ability to wrap our minds around either a finite universe or an infinite one is a mode of thought that is not available to us right now. To attempt to use logic to extrapolate the lack of a power that much greater than us is going to fail because of this fact. With enough knowledge, it is likely that god can be conceived of scientifically, but the fact that god may exist in an observable way would not make god any less divine.

Doen't that assume that existence has a beginning? The problem with your offsetting the primal existence problem to another object (which you called 'god') is that then that object inherits the same problem you started out with. When did the existence of 'god' began? If said 'god' transcends time, why can't existence itself do so as well?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The belief that all opinions are of equal value will be the doom of Western democracies.

the belief that they aren't will be the demise of us all

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Doen't that assume that existence has a beginning? The problem with your offsetting the primal existence problem to another object (which you called 'god') is that then that object inherits the same problem you started out with. When did the existence of 'god' began? If said 'god' transcends time, why can't existence itself do so as well?

you are attempting to gain a complete understanding of God. Such things are impossible, because God is beyond comprehension, that's why he's God, and not the President or something. You'd probably have better luck trying to fully understand women.
And our existence cannot transcend time because even science says that the earth, and thus life, has a definite beginning, it was about 4.6 billion years ago.

 

[FredLC]

Doen't that assume that existence has a beginning? The problem with your offsetting the primal existence problem to another object (which you called 'god') is that then that object inherits the same problem you started out with. When did the existence of 'god' began? If said 'god' transcends time, why can't existence itself do so as well?

Bingo; That's the Achilles' heel of the argument of the primal drive, or "unmovd mover", as called in this thread, from Thomas Aquinaes - it denies it's own premisse - if there has to be a something before the first thing, as the argument suggests, than there has to be something before it as well, ad infinitum.

Eyrei:

All is fine and dandy with me with the notion that we are ignorant about the true nature of universe's origins... but I disagree that calling it "God" is as good as calling it anything else. We are speaking of a highly socially loaded word, and adopting it is like vindicating an archetype of a sentient intelligence of some degree working things out... when nothing indicates it.

I agree that calling the beggining of universe "God" is ok, but as long as the term "God" stops implying what it implies today.

you are attempting to gain a complete understanding of God. Such things are impossible, because God is beyond comprehension, that's why he's God, and not the President or something. You'd probably have better luck trying to fully understand women.
And our existence cannot transcend time because even science says that the earth, and thus life, has a definite beginning, it was about 4.6 billion years ago.

Isn't this an argumentum ad ignorantiam?

Regards .

 

[puglover]

Doen't that assume that existence has a beginning? The problem with your offsetting the primal existence problem to another object (which you called 'god') is that then that object inherits the same problem you started out with. When did the existence of 'god' began? If said 'god' transcends time, why can't existence itself do so as well?

What does "existence itself" look like? Point is, all things around us had a beginning. Obviously, there is something beyond our universe that started it all, ultimately leading to our debating the topic on an average little blue-green planet on the edge of some solar system.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Isn't this an argumentum ad ignorantiam?.

No, it's faith.

it could be argued that the topic of this thread is an argumentum ad ignorantiam just the same

 

[FredLC]

Puglover, that is like saying the universe is like, say, a toaster.

Something that had to be done.

I think that the universe is quite a bit more complex than that, and it is not very reasonable to come up with some antrophocentric scenery where a man-friendly "maker" is putting all the pices and joints in their proper places.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

No, it's faith.

I always have had a curious overview on the concept of faith, and why having that apporach, which would be dreaded in 99% of our other relations in life, is considered so noble, so transcendental when it comes to deal with these metaphisics.

In short, I think of faith as a rather self-serving coincept.

But this is subject to another thread, which I'll probably open tomorrow (Feel free to reply to that here, but any rebuttal will be in that one yet to come.).

Regards .