"Why does there have to be a God?"

[morgantj]

Originally Posted by empther

Thomas Aquinas said God is a necessary being. He cannot not exist.

All the universe and creatures exist only because they received existence.
God is existence. If he did not exist neither would anything else since all other things must receive existence from something else. God does not receive existence because he is existence itself. "I am who am."

One can say anything they want about god, it doesn't matter a bit unless they are able to back up their claims with supporting evidence. On one hand you have people attributing all kinds of characterstics to god, on the other you have people saying that humans cannot possibly know god because god is beyond human understanding. These contradictions cause suspicion on the verity of it all.

[morgantj]

Originally Posted by redrosetea

To explain why there is a me, and a you......we came from somewhere

Filling in unknowns with "god did it" only supports the modern "god of the gaps" view in which it is a variant of an argument from ignorance.

[morgantj]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Why does there have to be no God?

That holds little to no explanation power.

For example, Why does there have to be no fairies, goblins, or flying pink unicorns? Why does my inivisble friend whom I have been commited for believing have to not exist? You can't prove my invisible friend doesn't exist. Why is it neccessarry that my invisible friend doesn't exist?

[morgantj]

Originally Posted by tomarin

Furthermore, if you reject the existence of God, who is all good, you also necessarily reject the existence of evil, which is the absence of good. Evil obviously exists; just open a newspaper. How does an atheist account for the existence of evil? He cannot, therefore he willy-nilly goes into the arms of moral relativism and cannot logically take a strong moral stand on anything.

If somebody doesn't believe god exist, they also don't believe the attributes you apply to him such as god being good. Because they don't believe there is a "him" to apply attributes to. So if a person doesn't believe god, it does not neccessitate that they also reject good and bad. They may believe good and bad are relative, so what?

Your argument is still just an "appeal to consequences" and has no bearing on addressing whether god exist or not nor does it provide evidence of any sort.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by morgantj

If somebody doesn't believe god exist[s]

And your reasons for disbelieving are?


jd

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by morgantj

That holds little to no explanation power.

For example, Why does there have to be no fairies, goblins, or flying pink unicorns? Why does my inivisble friend whom I have been commited for believing have to not exist? You can't prove my invisible friend doesn't exist. Why is it neccessarry that my invisible friend doesn't exist?

Does he?


jd

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by morgantj

Filling in unknowns with "god did it" only supports the modern "god of the gaps" view in which it is a variant of an argument from ignorance.

So, you would fill in the gaps with "atheism of the gaps"?


jd

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by morgantj

One can say anything they want about god, it doesn't matter a bit unless they are able to back up their claims with supporting evidence. On one hand you have people attributing all kinds of characterstics to god, on the other you have people saying that humans cannot possibly know god because god is beyond human understanding. These contradictions cause suspicion on the verity of it all.

And, herewith, Morgantj assures us that logic is in no way "supporting evidence"! Now, throw out all of those silly notions you once had about electrons, and muons, and virtual particles. We're FREE from them at last!


jd

[WAYNE LEYDS]

Originally Posted by cerad

Strange. I thought my car was made by General Motors.

So how does this relate to higher intelligence? Are you saying god is not complex, not well ordered, and doesn't have a time factor? It's all very confusing.

your sarcasm is unfortunate.and yes God is infinitly simple. perfectly perfect.and is not subject to time because when He acts, He is. When he moves it is not that He is moving fron 1 place to another but that He just is.because He IS moving.He IS the movement and He IS both the place from where He moved the place where He is and the place where is moving to.

[morgantj]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

So, you would fill in the gaps with "atheism of the gaps"?
jd

What is that? Never heard of "atheism of the gaps." Did you just make that up? If I don't know something, I just say, "I don't know."

Originally Posted by JDaniel

"And your reasons for disbelieving are?"

Originally Posted by JDaniel

Does he?

Originally Posted by JDaniel

And, herewith, Morgantj assures us that logic is in no way "supporting evidence"! Now, throw out all of those silly notions you once had about electrons, and muons, and virtual particles. We're FREE from them at last!

As WAYNE LEYDS said, "your sarcasm is unfortunate..." Let me know when you are ready to address my comments with substance instead of sarcasm.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by morgantj

What is that? Never heard of "atheism of the gaps." Did you just make that up? If I don't know something, I just say, "I don't know."







As WAYNE LEYDS said, "your sarcasm is unfortunate..." Let me know when you are ready to address my comments with substance instead of sarcasm.

I happen to like my sarcasm. Oh, and, by the way, I was addressing your comments with the substance they deserved. Are you afraid to answer them?

jd

[morgantj]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

I happen to like my sarcasm. Oh, and, by the way, I was addressing your comments with the substance they deserved. Are you afraid to answer them?

jd

You have not even explained what you find wrong with my comments to begin with. You are just being belligerent.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by morgantj

One can say anything they want about god, it doesn't matter a bit unless they are able to back up their claims with supporting evidence. On one hand you have people attributing all kinds of characterstics to god, on the other you have people saying that humans cannot possibly know god because god is beyond human understanding. These contradictions cause suspicion on the verity of it all.

do you follow theoretical physics?

there are at least 11 different interpertations of QM, does that make you doubt a quantum particles existence?

[morgantj]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

do you follow theoretical physics?

there are at least 11 different interpertations of QM, does that make you doubt a quantum particles existence?

There is evidence that subatomic particles exist. The different interpretations of QM are attempted explanations of what the experiments we have done in QM actually mean, what the possible consequences of QM are on our understanding of nature. The interpretations of QM are not doubts of whether or not particles at the atomic scale exist or not, we have evidence that they do, the interpretations of QM are various theories on what the test results mean in regards to the behavior of these systems on the quantum level and how it applies to our understanding of nature, often addressing causality, determinism, randomness, etc...

Your attempted analogy is like saying there are different interpretations of an inkblot, does that make you doubt the inkblot exist? This is not analogous to people applying different characteristics to a god they don't even know exist in the first place and then later saying that god is beyond human understanding after they just claimed to have an understanding.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by morgantj

There is evidence that subatomic particles exist. The different interpretations of QM are attempted explanations of what the experiments we have done in QM actually mean, what the possible consequences of QM are on our understanding of nature. The interpretations of QM are not doubts of whether or not particles at the atomic scale exist or not, we have evidence that they do, the interpretations of QM are various theories on what the test results mean in regards to the behavior of these systems on the quantum level and how it applies to our understanding of nature, often addressing causality, determinism, randomness, etc...

Your attempted analogy is like saying there are different interpretations of an inkblot, does that make you doubt the inkblot exist? This is not analogous to people applying different characteristics to a god they don't even know exist in the first place and then later saying that god is beyond human understanding after they just claimed to have an understanding.

its meant to point out that different interpretations of something, dont necessarily throw doubt on it.

but you missed that.