Does God Exist?

[AdamWW]

Yes OP..yes he does. 4 billion odd years is nowhere near enough time to randomly stumble upon the information required to build life.

You cannot simply say it's 'nowhere near long enough'.

What is your basis for this opinion?

[jaxqen]

Expect a really lengthy reply to all of what you're asking me sometime this weekend.

I waited and I waited and I waited

[EiFit91]

a) Who was Cain's wife?
After Abel's death, Cain marries with a woman. AFTER this, Adam and Eve have a third one, named Seth. AFTER Seth, it is mentioned they have many sons and daughters.

To avoid incest, Cain banged a chimpanzee. And so we've unified creationism and the theory of evolution - rejoice!

[Paul Kreul]

You cannot simply say it's 'nowhere near long enough'.

What is your basis for this opinion?

sorry, just now seeing this. It doesn't matter how long you have, anytime you start making random changes to any type of system at random it will ALWAYS DEGRADES the information vastly before you get anything new that is useful.

Take entropy, entropy is a product of order decaying into disorder, which is why disorder cannot produce an orderly system over time, and this is also why a cosmic big bang cannot generate the specifics needed to produce the level of order there is within the solar system.

[Beginner244]

Arguments in favor? Arguments against?

I got downvoted to hell last time I posted in a religion thread but it depends on what you define God as.

I am Roman Catholic and Classical Theist.

We define God as "Most Fundamental Truth" at the most basic level. We believe there is such a thing as Objective, Most Fundamental Truth, and we call that God.


So if you believe there is an eternal, most fundamental truth then you believe in the classical theist conception of God. If you believe there is no objective truth then you are a subjectivist, and I'm not sure how to take that seriously.

[jaxqen]

To avoid incest, Cain banged a chimpanzee. And so we've unified creationism and the theory of evolution - rejoice!

I've heard this theory from a believer.
He said Adam and Eve weren't the first humans on Earth.
They were the first pure humans created by God.
The others came from the chimpanzees that God also created.
And Cain took a wife from the chimp side.
And then he explained something about the Neanderthals and the Homo sapiens and unified the creationism and the evolution.
He had an answer for everything.

No idea how much it matters, since we all came from Noah, his wife, his 3 sons with his 3 wifes.
All his 3 sons had wifes, no incels back then.
Also, none of them had children when they stepped on the ark.
Which is weird, because back then, after the 'marriage' the woman quickly became a baby factory.
Then, after the flood, they all made children.
And the cousins ****ed each other, I assume.
Or the other 2 chimps saved on the ark.

And now there are 8 billions of us, half being Indians and Chinese.
Things escalated quickly.

[EliKoehn]

I waited and I waited and I waited

This has been on my mind; I've had a fairly unusual and eventful week in my personal life, and didn't feel mentally prepared for the longwinded response I intend to give. Again, it's just what I find compelling; I'm no harbinger of secrets or anything, but if you do want to know what I have to say on it, then stand by.

[jaxqen]

This has been on my mind; I've had a fairly unusual and eventful week in my personal life, and didn't feel mentally prepared for the longwinded response I intend to give. Again, it's just what I find compelling; I'm no harbinger of secrets or anything, but if you do want to know what I have to say on it, then stand by.

Okay, got it, no problem.
I just thought you forgot about it.
Write whenever you can.
Good luck!

[AdamWW]

sorry, just now seeing this. It doesn't matter how long you have, anytime you start making random changes to any type of system at random it will ALWAYS DEGRADES the information vastly before you get anything new that is useful.

Take entropy, entropy is a product of order decaying into disorder, which is why disorder cannot produce an orderly system over time, and this is also why a cosmic big bang cannot generate the specifics needed to produce the level of order there is within the solar system.

I fail to see how this in any way supports the notion of the existence of God.

Please explain...

Also, your comment regarding the Big Bang is, again, just speculation without specific attempts to disprove any of the theory's components.

"big bang cannot generate the specifics..." doesn't disprove it, and furthermore is doesn't prove God. If you're not a thoroughly educated person in the fields of physics, etc, how can you possibly hope to understand the mechanisms ?

I'm actually less interested in anyone trying to prove The Big Bang.. the thread is about whether God exists.... and it seems like people are using the "God of the Gaps" arguments over and over.

[Beginner244]

I fail to see how this in any way supports the notion of the existence of God.

Please explain...

Also, your comment regarding the Big Bang is, again, just speculation without specific attempts to disprove any of the theory's components.

"big bang cannot generate the specifics..." doesn't disprove it, and furthermore is doesn't prove God. If you're not a thoroughly educated person in the fields of physics, etc, how can you possibly hope to understand the mechanisms ?

I'm actually less interested in anyone trying to prove The Big Bang.. the thread is about whether God exists.... and it seems like people are using the "God of the Gaps" arguments over and over.

A good argument for the existence of God is the argument from composition.

In physics we have things that are composed. For example your body is composed of blood, tissue, muscle, bone, etc.

The parts that make you up as a whole precede your existence. But there must be something which is most fundamental to all things that are composed, and whatever that is, it must be non-composition.

[AdamWW]

A good argument for the existence of God is the argument from composition.

In physics we have things that are composed. For example your body is composed of blood, tissue, muscle, bone, etc.

The parts that make you up as a whole precede your existence. But there must be something which is most fundamental to all things that are composed, and whatever that is, it must be non-composition.

That also isn’t a good argument for God specifically.

The only thing that suggests is that observable matter didn’t always exist as we know it now. This is, again, a “God of the Gaps” kind of argument.

Why would it be “God” simply because we don’t know what it is?

Particles can actually snap in and out of existence, and the expression of potential doesn’t mean that before the current state of matter was expressed, nothing existed at all.

Again, these are all cool things to ponder, but not proof of God… it just proves we don’t know everything with absolute certainly. Absence of an answer =/= must be God.

[BlackJack619]

Jesus is the only thing that really matters, everything else is just noise.

[Beginner244]

That also isn’t a good argument for God specifically.

The only thing that suggests is that observable matter didn’t always exist as we know it now. This is, again, a “God of the Gaps” kind of argument.

Why would it be “God” simply because we don’t know what it is?

Particles can actually snap in and out of existence, and the expression of potential doesn’t mean that before the current state of matter was expressed, nothing existed at all.

Again, these are all cool things to ponder, but not proof of God… it just proves we don’t know everything with absolute certainly. Absence of an answer =/= must be God.

I think you are misconstruing what a God of the gaps argument is. A God of the gaps argument is when there's something unexplained in science or physics and we explain it by using God to fill the gaps in our lack of understanding.

The argument from composition is saying simply that there must be something that is most fundamental to composed things, and that whatever the most fundamental thing is, it must logically be non-composition.


The Classical Theist definition for God is "that which is most fundamental"

Again, I am not saying "we don't know what it is therefore it's God", I am saying that our definition for God is that which is Most Fundamental to all of reality. There's a distinct difference.



I have no interest in God of the gaps arguments.

[AdamWW]

I think you are misconstruing what a God of the gaps argument is. A God of the gaps argument is when there's something unexplained in science or physics and we explain it by using God to fill the gaps in our lack of understanding.

The argument from composition is saying simply that there must be something that is most fundamental to composed things, and that whatever the most fundamental thing is, it must logically be non-composition.


The Classical Theist definition for God is "that which is most fundamental"

Again, I am not saying "we don't know what it is therefore it's God", I am saying that our definition for God is that which is Most Fundamental to all of reality. There's a distinct difference.



I have no interest in God of the gaps arguments.

The post I relied to specifically said “a good argument for God”…

And in this post now you say “our definition of God is that which is most fundamental to al if reality”.

By this definition, God could literally be nothing at all…

This isn’t an argument for God… it’s an argument for “I don’t know”. You’re just naming it “God” which isn’t something theists believe in…. God has distinct characteristics in essentially all known religions.

This would be like saying “I’m an atheist, but I believe in God, because I define God as the underlying forces which govern the universe.”

That does not make sense… you’re not using the right terms.

[Guyfawkes1010]

You either believe or you don’t. I have the perspective of going from non believer to a believer. So I know nothing I say would convince a non believer.

But I will pray for you to find Gods light. And if not I will pray for you to enter heaven.

It’s kinda funny I seen an angel when I was a kid and totally ignored it not really giving it much thought. It’s one of the couple things I look back on now and wonder if it was a message or blessing.

Even when I was agnostic or atheist you could say I knew it was something unexplainable. Even back then I thought maybe it was a ghost or something.

If you’re curious it happened one night when I was a kid of about 9 or 10. I remember it very clearly because it scared the chit out of me. A pure white circle of light on my bedroom floor.

I had not yet gone to sleep but was trying. I looked out from under my covers and there it was. I was on the top bunk and my sister below. I remember when I first seen it I tried whispering to her to wake up and look. But I was too scared. I remember looking over at the window to see if someone was shining a flashlight through but nope. I also then remember looking to both doors in the room and again nothing.

I remember looking at the circle and not being able to see the carpet underneath. It was such a pure white light. I hid under my blanket for a few seconds then peaked out again it was still there. I went back under the cover for a min or two then checked again and it was gone.

Really can’t explain it. I just know it wasn’t a dream. It didn’t seem to be something explained by a light source. It didn’t light up the room. It was just a perfect round blinding white circle on the ground.

[AdamWW]

You either believe or you don’t. I have the perspective of going from non believer to a believer. So I know nothing I say would convince a non believer.

But I will pray for you to find Gods light. And if not I will pray for you to enter heaven.

It’s kinda funny I seen an angel when I was a kid and totally ignored it not really giving it much thought. It’s one of the couple things I look back on now and wonder if it was a message or blessing.

Even when I was agnostic or atheist you could say I knew it was something unexplainable. Even back then I thought maybe it was a ghost or something.

If you’re curious it happened one night when I was a kid of about 9 or 10. I remember it very clearly because it scared the chit out of me. A pure white circle of light on my bedroom floor.

I had not yet gone to sleep but was trying. I looked out from under my covers and there it was. I was on the top bunk and my sister below. I remember when I first seen it I tried whispering to her to wake up and look. But I was too scared. I remember looking over at the window to see if someone was shining a flashlight through but nope. I also then remember looking to both doors in the room and again nothing.

I remember looking at the circle and not being able to see the carpet underneath. It was such a pure white light. I hid under my blanket for a few seconds then peaked out again it was still there. I went back under the cover for a min or two then checked again and it was gone.

Really can’t explain it. I just know it wasn’t a dream. It didn’t seem to be something explained by a light source. It didn’t light up the room. It was just a perfect round blinding white circle on the ground.

I remember feeling so bad after the most recent school shooting where innocent kids were killed by a crazed gunman….

But then I remembered that God works in mysterious ways that we don’t understand.

Suddenly the Holocaust didn’t seem to bad. I’m sure he was just busy with other stuff. I’m glad we can excuse any number of horrifying experiences by closing our eyes and talking to the clouds.

Must be nice.

[Guyfawkes1010]

I remember feeling so bad after the most recent school shooting where innocent kids were killed by a crazed gunman….

But then I remembered that God works in mysterious ways that we don’t understand.

Suddenly the Holocaust didn’t seem to bad. I’m sure he was just busy with other stuff. I’m glad we can excuse any number of horrifying experiences by closing our eyes and talking to the clouds.

Must be nice.

Why are you blaming God for things we do to ourselves? And you may say why does he allow these things to happen at all? Because he gives us free will.

[AdamWW]

Why are you blaming God for things we do to ourselves? And you may say why does he allow these things to happen at all? Because he gives us free will.

Can you prove we have free will? I do not believe we truly have free will at all.

I’m not blaming God, that would require a belief in God… I never said I do.

My point here is that it sounds like you believe in a traditional, Christian-like God, one that is both all-good and also all-powerful.

Well, if God is all good and can literally prevent all suffering: why is there suffering?

If the goal is happiness and peace, explain why a God capable of literally anything would allow such suffering? And why would you believe in a God which, despite being capable of making it all go away, did not?

[Guyfawkes1010]

Can you prove we have free will? I do not believe we truly have free will at all.

I’m not blaming God, that would require a belief in God… I never said I do.

My point here is that it sounds like you believe in a traditional, Christian-like God, one that is both all-good and also all-powerful.

Well, if God is all good and can literally prevent all suffering: why is there suffering?

If the goal is happiness and peace, explain why a God capable of literally anything would allow such suffering? And why would you believe in a God which, despite being capable of making it all go away, did not?

What’s the point of this argument? Why even bring it up if you know you’re not going to change your mind? I believe it’s because some part of you deep down knows God is real. And you’re trying desperately to prove to your own ego God isn’t real.

Someone who truly did not believe in God wouldn’t feel the need to argue it. And EVERY atheist argues it.

God is good. To those who submit. You may think the act of submission to God is a power trip to God but it’s not. It’s about getting you to release your own ego to see the truth. It’s for YOUR benefit.

There is a reason he is called the Father. Because like any father (or mother) what’s best for us is not always what we want.

[AdamWW]

What’s the point of this argument? Why even bring it up if you know you’re not going to change your mind? I believe it’s because some part of you deep down knows God is real. And you’re trying desperately to prove to your own ego God isn’t real.

Someone who truly did not believe in God wouldn’t feel the need to argue it. And EVERY atheist argues it.

God is good. To those who submit. You may think the act of submission to God is a power trip to God but it’s not. It’s about getting you to release your own ego to see the truth. It’s for YOUR benefit.

There is a reason he is called the Father. Because like any father (or mother) what’s best for us is not always what we want.

Nothing but circular arguments….

Believe whatever you want, I’m just saying your attempt at explaining the reasons doesn’t hold up.

[Guyfawkes1010]

Nothing but circular arguments….

Believe whatever you want, I’m just saying your attempt at explaining the reasons doesn’t hold up.

They hold up. You’re just so egotistical and arrogant you refuse to consider a perspective other than the one you hold. Trust me I know.

Also please explain which of my arguments are circular.

[AdamWW]

They hold up. You’re just so egotistical and arrogant you refuse to consider a perspective other than the one you hold. Trust me I know.

Also please explain which of my arguments are circular.

So because I don’t accept your arguments, I’m egotistical? Right… nice cop out.

You know what’s really egotistical ? Believing that your personal version of God is the only way into ‘heaven’.

On the other hand, I make no claim to righteousness.. I accept I don’t have the answer.

Circular argument:

“God is good to those who submit”

And yet, in order to submit, I have to believe God is good.

Sounds like a tyrant to me.

[jaxqen]

God created Guyfawkes1010 so he could write the word "lulz" on Misc and talk politics and watch House of Dragons.
He had a plan.

[Beginner244]

The post I relied to specifically said “a good argument for God”…

And in this post now you say “our definition of God is that which is most fundamental to al if reality”.

By this definition, God could literally be nothing at all…

No that's not true. There actually does need to be something called "Most Fundamental Truth" or "Objective Truth", if you read the ancient philosophers such as Aristotle. You'll know that the Classical Theist definition of God is "Most Fundamental Truth" rather than some cosmic superbeing-entity in another dimension.

"God" used to just be a word for "Most Fundamental Truth", but in our modern time, God has connotations as like, some old man in the sky. Aristotle was a student of physics, and metaphysics, and when he referred to "Divine Nature" he was referring to the most fundamental truth.

Likewise in mathematics, there is something called Most Fundamental Truth. This is not something that is just made up.

Objective Truth must exist. It cannot be "nothing" as you mentioned.

[Paul Kreul]

I fail to see how this in any way supports the notion of the existence of God.

Please explain...

Also, your comment regarding the Big Bang is, again, just speculation without specific attempts to disprove any of the theory's components.

"big bang cannot generate the specifics..." doesn't disprove it, and furthermore is doesn't prove God. If you're not a thoroughly educated person in the fields of physics, etc, how can you possibly hope to understand the mechanisms ?

I'm actually less interested in anyone trying to prove The Big Bang.. the thread is about whether God exists.... and it seems like people are using the "God of the Gaps" arguments over and over.

Not God of the gaps at all. Everything we observe, study, research when it comes to functional information comes from intelligence. And random mutations never produce functional information. Stephen Meyer breaks it down pretty nicely in regards to DNA, I'm summarizing here but he makes a good comparison to how software code works identically to DNA.

Richard Dawkins & many, many others have acknowledged that what we have in DNA code is akin to machine or as Leroy Hood puts it..DIGITAL CODE. It is functioning in EXACTLY the SAME WAY. What you learn from software writing & using is highly relevant in understanding whether or not the mutation selection mechanism would actually generate new information. There is a reason that changing software at random ALWAYS DEGRADES the information vastly before you get anything new that is useful. It is because there are so many more ways to go wrong in any system of digital typographic or alphabetic communication. There are vastly more ways of arranging the characters in question will generate gibberish than there are ways of arranging those same characters that will generate something that is functional.
If you start randomly changing things, your overwhelmingly more likely to find a gibberish sequence than a functional one.


Then we can look at The Lenski Experiment to show that the only changes that were made to bacteria (E.Coli) after observing them for 300,000 yrs (he combined generations to simulate this) was a net loss of information...there was no "evolution to speak of. I've said it before but much of what is usually attributed to mutations in the nature is simply adaptation, and that adaptation is called EPIGENETICS. It is a system that does not change the DNA, it regulates gene-expression and does not need those millions of years to do it. In fact a good example of epigenetic adaptation are the Galapagos finches. It was supposed until recently that changes in the size and form of their beaks required time periods typical to the Darwinian explanation, observations have however confirmed that the changes occur continuously (as rapidly is in a couple of years) and are reversible.

This notion that there is a species transition from one to the next is completely false.


As far as the Universe, there are only 3 possibilities for it's existence..

1)It always existed (we know this is not true, background radiation echo, red shift, etc. show a beginning
2)It created itself (that's impossible, nothing cannot create something
3) Something or someone outside of the Universe created it...this is the only logical explanation

[jaxqen]

1)It always existed (we know this is not true, background radiation echo, red shift, etc. show a beginning
2)It created itself (that's impossible, nothing cannot create something
3) Something or someone outside of the Universe created it...this is the only logical explanation

1. No! We assume it had a beginning, based on the extremely limited information we have.
2. Then who created God? He created himself? If the universe has a beginning and God created it, where did God live before the Universe being created?
3. And of course, it is the Bible God, right?

[Paul Kreul]

1. No! We assume it had a beginning, based on the extremely limited information we have.
2. Then who created God? He created himself? If the universe has a beginning and God created it, where did God live before the Universe being created?
3. And of course, it is the Bible God, right?

1) Why would you consider the information we have to be limited? Everything we have studied in this regard points to the Universe having a beginning. We can go through it all if you like

2)If you trace back far enough, there must be a creator, because again, everything we observe, study, and research indicates that origin of information always arises from intelligence.

3) Is there any other God that claims to have created life/universe? Mohammad never claimed to be God, in fact he worshipped the God of Abraham, Shiva never claimed to be the Creator of the Universe, Buddha never claimed to God, he abandoned his wife and child to seek "enlightenment"..so what other God claimed to be the Creator of all things?

[jaxqen]

1) Why would you consider the information we have to be limited? Everything we have studied in this regard points to the Universe having a beginning. We can go through it all if you like

2)If you trace back far enough, there must be a creator, because again, everything we observe, study, and research indicates that origin of information always arises from intelligence.

3) Is there any other God that claims to have created life/universe? Mohammad never claimed to be God, in fact he worshipped the God of Abraham, Shiva never claimed to be the Creator of the Universe, Buddha never claimed to God, he abandoned his wife and child to seek "enlightenment"..so what other God claimed to be the Creator of all things?

1. Because it is limited. What we know in 2021 might be obsolete for 2121. Science evolves and it doesn't claim to have all answers.

2. And again, who created God? Because, according to your arguments, he couldn't arise from nothing.

3. There are many religions and beliefs, some older than Christianity or Judaism, that have a Creator deity. Seriously?

[Paul Kreul]

1. Because it is limited. What we know in 2021 might be obsolete for 2121. Science evolves and it doesn't claim to have all answers.

2. And again, who created God? Because, according to your arguments, he couldn't arise from nothing.

3. There are many religions and beliefs, some older than Christianity or Judaism, that have a Creator deity. Seriously?

1) Yes, the sCience is ever changing, next year there will be 30 more genders, and despite the definition of the word..life "doesn't really" begin at conception. FFS..sCIenCe..SMH

2)God is outside of creation, and the Universe, laws of nature do not apply to the one that created nature...just like if I build an ant maze, I am not constricted to the movements the ants are forced to operate in

3) what religious God claimed to be the Creator of the Universe? Baal, Moloch..? nope..and where are those God's now. You want proof it's the Biblical God? two words...The Jew. Once you study the history of the Jewish people, you will realize whom the One and true God is.

[AdamWW]

No that's not true. There actually does need to be something called "Most Fundamental Truth" or "Objective Truth", if you read the ancient philosophers such as Aristotle. You'll know that the Classical Theist definition of God is "Most Fundamental Truth" rather than some cosmic superbeing-entity in another dimension.

"God" used to just be a word for "Most Fundamental Truth", but in our modern time, God has connotations as like, some old man in the sky. Aristotle was a student of physics, and metaphysics, and when he referred to "Divine Nature" he was referring to the most fundamental truth.

Likewise in mathematics, there is something called Most Fundamental Truth. This is not something that is just made up.

Objective Truth must exist. It cannot be "nothing" as you mentioned.

Uh, then you’re not following the theme of the thread at all.

If you are defining God as “objective truth”, then fine… I accept that there are adjective truths.

I also accept that the moon is made of cheese, if by “cheese” you mean not cheese.