"A Proof of the Existence of God" - May/June 2006 Problem

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Ignatios

That anti-GOD and atheists exist, is the very proof that GOD Exist, For if there was no G-D then there wouldn't be Atheist

Regard.

[Ignatios]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

Regard.

After listening to this youtube video, I have few things to say:

The discussion here is not about what the theists are trying to push on the atheists, it is only about whether GOD exist or not, the Video I listened to, it mostly speaks about what the theists or religions leads to, so looking at this point, I find the atheists making for themselves an excuse for not to believe in GOD, on you tube they talked about the crusaders, was the crusaders actions according to what GOD wants them to do? No, did the Church approved their horrible actions, again, NO, on the contrary, we heard Pope JPII ( may his memory be eternal) apologizing for the actions of those crusaders.

well I can go on and on, BUT the religion of GOD, are the following and I will list a couple:
Matthew 5:39
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:44
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
And the teaching of CHRIST is all about Mercy and Love. You can't get around this

But let us go back to the subject at hand.

Science. Math, knowledge etc...all are limited, none of them can or would be able to answer the very simple question that I asked before i.e. give me the Cause of the cause that causes your heart to beat?

It is a reasonable question for reasonists and rationalists, you cannot rationalize this question or answer it with a reason, so your reason-set mind has failed in reason, BUT yet you refuse to admit to it, because, us human it is written in our heart that we need GOD, and since those who reject GOD, animated by the inner force make for themselves a god so that they can fill in the unbearable vacancy in their hearts, So some become slaves to Zeus, some slaves to Baal, some to Atheism, some to power, some to authority some to money, and some may call this god of theirs J---s C----t etc...whatever makes them feel better.

GOD bless you all †††

[AlbertBall]

Originally Posted by Ignatios

Science. Math, knowledge etc...all are limited, none of them can or would be able to answer the very simple question that I asked before i.e. give me the Cause of the cause that causes your heart to beat?

I can tell you that, the answer is chemical reactions in the Brain. My heart beats because the mussel contracts, it contracts because of electricity, the electricity is caused by brain chemistry. NEXT!

Not sure what all of this has to do with the fact there is not a single shred of evidence to support the existence of a god?

[Ignatios]

Originally Posted by AlbertBall

I can tell you that, the answer is chemical reactions in the Brain. My heart beats because the mussel contracts, it contracts because of electricity, the electricity is caused by brain chemistry. NEXT!

Not sure what all of this has to do with the fact there is not a single shred of evidence to support the existence of a god?

loool... and what causes the brain chemistry? remember my question the Cause of the cause that cuases... IAW the ultimate Cause, can you reach that far?

If you are a reasonist, then there must be a reason for all this, and since there is a reason, then likewise there must be someone behind the reason in order to initiate it, or where does the reason comes from, I ask you? itself ? if the answer is yes, then that Reason must also have a reason, and thus you have entered into a endless spiral, But if your answer is NO, then who initiate the reason, For, the reasonist, they must believe in a reason for everything or they fail to be reasoners, and if they fail to be a reasoners by reason, then, what is their believe?

GOD bless you †††

[Voice of Reason]

Besides there being a lot of problems with the tired, old first-cause argument (as I've demonstrated in part in earlier posts) - just because you can't explain something scientifically or philosophically, doesn't give you free reign to just insert your god into gaps in knowledge. Far better to the rational mind to be incredulous to easy-answers. Religion, after all, was, as Hitchens puts it, our first attempt at everything.

[Ignatios]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

Besides there being a lot of problems with the tired, old first-cause argument (as I've demonstrated in part in earlier posts) - just because you can't explain something scientifically or philosophically,

Ok, Very well then, what is the reason for not being able to explain something scientifically or philosophically?
For someone to not be able to understand something, then that would mean that this subject matter is greater then he can comprehend or reason with, is this an unreasonable view, I ask? and if this subject matter is greater then he can rationalize, then, lets reason together on this subject matter that HE is beyond reason.

...doesn't give you free reign to just insert your god into gaps in knowledge.

I didn't insert GOD into the gaps of the knowledge, BUT I simply asked for the ultimate cause, the ultimate does not fall in between anything but above and before all things, and simply stated that science math and knowledge has a limit, my question was beyond this limit, and not in between.
But maybe a better term for" the gap in knowledge" would be a "lack of knowledge", for knowledge with gaps would be guessing.

... Far better to the rational mind to be incredulous to easy-answers.

It was an easy question, but it was not an easy answer, was it? I must admit, how could it be an easy one, how can someone describe the Creator the One who is greater then himself, in order to do so then you must be equal or greater then HE, and if so then how come your knowledge has gaps, or your reasons lacks.

Religion, after all, was, as Hitchens puts it, our first attempt at everything.

Did you read Hitchens vs. Hitchens, it would be interesting to see the view of his brother, concerning this subject.

GOD bless you †††

[thebrit]

After watching from a distance, all this discussion has revealed to me that the existence of God cannot be proven. It is a matter of faith. Either you believe or you do not. There are probably many factors involved in that decision and people should be respected for their own choice.

[bluelake]

Originally Posted by Wolves

The article can be found at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605uan.asp

In a debate with an atheist on this article, they brought up that they did not see evidence from the article that "esse" is a sentient being. I'm having trouble proving to him that "esse" is sentient. Any help is appreciated.

If we had to prove God existed, He would be an idol.
We walk by faith. Ehp.. 2:8-9

God bless,
blulekae

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Ignatios

Ok, Very well then, what is the reason for not being able to explain something scientifically or philosophically?
For someone to not be able to understand something, then that would mean that this subject matter is greater then he can comprehend or reason with, is this an unreasonable view, I ask? and if this subject matter is greater then he can rationalize...

That's right, there are no immediate answers available to our reason.

I didn't insert GOD into the gaps of the knowledge, BUT I simply asked for the ultimate cause,

No, you inserted your ultimate cause into gaps of knowledge and called it God. There is nothing further known than that things exist; implying anything further is assumption and fancy.

the ultimate does not fall in between anything but above and before all things,

That there is this presupposed ultimate thing is precisely the gap you're trying to fill in our knowledge about why there is something rather than nothing.

and simply stated that science math and knowledge has a limit, my question was beyond this limit, and not in between.

The ultimate source that your question begs would be beyond this limit if it existed, but your reasoning as to whether the ultimate thing exists is well within limit. You've said more than we could possibly know if you've gone further than asserting that there is something rather than nothing.

It was an easy question, but it was not an easy answer, was it?

Not when you have to explain them to a sceptic, no, esspecially when the answer still falls short of anything closely resembling convincing or reasonable.

I must admit, how could it be an easy one, how can someone describe the Creator the One who is greater then himself, in order to do so then you must be equal or greater then HE, and if so then how come your knowledge has gaps, or your reasons lacks.

Well it's easy until someone demands a better explanation. Until someone demands how you could possibly infer a God from the simple fact of there being something rather than nothing, God is as easy to explain as any myth or legend or god that went before him.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by AlbertBall

I most certainly have, i will stay there. And if i die and i am confronted by a god, be it Allah, Zeus, Mithra, Yahweh and they ask why i did not believe. I will simply say that the standard of evidence that suggest there was a god, was non existent. Given that the god will know my mind they will know this is an honest, and heartfelt answer. I will then ask to be left alone to go on my merry way, as i have never harmed anyone, and in the nicest way possible have no wish to worship or befriend a god in the after life.

This is simply irrational.

This is a choice against God. You have been made aware that there is a God and cannot feign ignorance.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by buffalo

This is simply irrational.

This is a choice against God. You have been made aware that there is a God and cannot feign ignorance.

AlbertBall's response is cheeky in that it postulates, for sport, the idea of meeting God or gods in the afterlife, but it certainly doesn't imply that he's been made aware of such a God. Will you grasp at anything to shelter your position?

[AlbertBall]

Originally Posted by Ignatios

loool... and what causes the brain chemistry? remember my question the Cause of the cause that cuases... IAW the ultimate Cause, can you reach that far?

If you are a reasonist, then there must be a reason for all this, and since there is a reason, then likewise there must be someone behind the reason in order to initiate it, or where does the reason comes from, I ask you? itself ? if the answer is yes, then that Reason must also have a reason, and thus you have entered into a endless spiral, But if your answer is NO, then who initiate the reason, For, the reasonist, they must believe in a reason for everything or they fail to be reasoners, and if they fail to be a reasoners by reason, then, what is their believe?

GOD bless you †††

So your presenting a god of the gaps argument. You are going to keep asking questions and say we go back and i could answer 999 out of 1000, when i get to the last one and admit "i don't know" your going to say "HA! See god must have done it"? See the thing is "god did it" means the EXACT same as "i don't know", accept you don't want to admit it. At least i am being intellectually honest.

We can trace our origins all the way back to the start of the universe without ANY need for a god. We "do not know" much about before in inflation of space-time, that does NOT mean "god did it" it means "WE DON'T KNOW". Filling in the blanks with god has always proved to be a pointless affair. Storms = god angry, Rainbow = sign from god, God created the world in 6 days, god made man out of the dirt, god made women out of a man rib, and so on. These are your arguments 1500 years ago.

[AlbertBall]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

AlbertBall's response is cheeky in that it postulates, for sport, the idea of meeting God or gods in the afterlife, but it certainly doesn't imply that he's been made aware of such a God. Will you grasp at anything to shelter your position?

Took the words right out my mouth.

[AlbertBall]

Originally Posted by Ignatios

Ok, Very well then, what is the reason for not being able to explain something scientifically or philosophically?

Because at this point in time we do not have the knowledge to do so. Just over 200 years ago we didn't even know atoms existed. 60 years ago DNA. 400 years ago cells, and so on. As understanding of our existence and the cosmos is constantly improving. However as explained to you above when we have gaps in that knowledge the intellectually honest answer is we don't know. Shoving a god into them utterly pointless, it has been shown on countless occasions now to be 100% incorrect.

Not only that but it actually stand in the way of scientific progression.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...+grasse&hl=en#

[Ghosty]

Originally Posted by AlbertBall

Because at this point in time we do not have the knowledge to do so. Just over 200 years ago we didn't even know atoms existed. 60 years ago DNA. 400 years ago cells, and so on. As understanding of our existence and the cosmos is constantly improving. However as explained to you above when we have gaps in that knowledge the intellectually honest answer is we don't know. Shoving a god into them utterly pointless, it has been shown on countless occasions now to be 100% incorrect.

Not only that but it actually stand in the way of scientific progression.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...+grasse&hl=en#

So you appeal to "maybe" and gaps, and we'll appeal to the facts as they are right now. Who's more rational?

You are being far more dogmatic than those of us who accept the idea of God based on experienced evidence. When you encounter evidence for God you say "someday in the future we might be able to explain these things materially". The rational response to these facts would be to say "I don't know, but the evidence points towards a distinct entity", but instead you appeal to pure emptiness and speculation. That can only be the result of a dogmatic insistence on the non-existence of God, or at least the dogmatic insistence on agnoticism. If it's the former then you are in a weaker position than those who claim that God exists based on evidence, and if it's the latter then you can't make any rational claims whatsoever, since even rational thought might be disproven 60 years from now when we all discover that we're just brains in a vat that have been constantly fed psychodelic drugs.

Peace and God bless!