Mini arguments for God's existence

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 126
#61
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
 The one who's a Fundamental consciousness .

Oh ,  The F N C God ,  he's like a half brother of the Supreme ultimate reality God.

Let's try this a different way.

What religious group are you in mate ?
 
 


#62
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Fallaneze
And which one is a fundamental consciousness?

#63
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Fund a mental
#64
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Oh ,  The F N C God ,  he's like a half brother of the Supreme ultimate reality God.
i'm pretty sure I was told 'God is love'.   Is that the same one?


#65
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
Arrrrrrr God is love. 
To clarify to others.
When keith mentions God is love , he means man and women love.  Obviously god isn't man and man love. 
 Ok.
This god of love you talk about Keith has not a single thing to do with the f''n c god nor the the sup ult real God. 
I think i might know who told you this but..  i suspect its The same thing that told me last week , " JESUS lives here " 
I believe it was a Sign from God, 
Shlt , again to clarify. 
When i say " A sign from god " , i mean those signs with the interchangeable lettering that you find out the front or churches.

God is love . Jesus loves you , stuff like this.
I bet that the same thing that told you " God is love " would of one day later told you that  " i do Gloves " 

But keith , can you do me a favor pal .
Have a great Christmas man. 

Change  Interchangeably to changeable.
The signs with the changeable words .  
if it wasn't for Them signs and Christmas carols i wouldn't know a single thing about God's. 

Good day
Topic's author
#66
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
This one. 

#67
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Fallaneze
lol, you're one of those "beat around the bushers" aren't you? You think you're right because you won't answer a question. What a waste of time. What the fuck are you even doing here dude? You're not interested in debate. The first time a real challenger comes up to you, to use semantics to get out of having to actually defend your ridiculous arguments. Pathetic. I'm done with this thread.

Topic's author
#68
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
If you have a problem with any of the arguments I'm all ears.
#69
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Fallaneze
If you have a problem with any of the arguments I'm all ears.

That's an obvious lie considering I've refuted most of your so-called arguments already, and not a peep from you.

I would say BT is right, you're not here to debate. Why are you here? To preach?
#70
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I'd say your arguments are variations on the neccessity (or otherwise) of conscious intent at the origin of things; 'God' is then the embodient of that intent.

The alternate view is that consciousness and intent are not neccessary and the origin of things was mindless and purposeless.

The latter raises the question: if purpose was not there at the start, where can it come from?

Many people conclude 'nowhere', leading to the bleak prospect that life - and existence itself - would be pointess and meaningless.  For that reason they reject a godless origin.

i think we have to accept that meaning and purpose are not 'out there' and imposed on us but must come from within and imposed by us on 'out there'.   The problem is to chose meaning and purpose wisely.



#71
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Fallaneze
No you're not. If you were, you wouldn't have a problem answering a question as simple as what your religion is. You're not very good at this. The only thing you've managed to accomplish here is annoying people.
Topic's author
#72
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
I agree with your characterization. I disagree about needing to accept that purpose and meaning are not external to ourselves though.
Topic's author
#73
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
I have none
#74
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I disagree about needing to accept that purpose and meaning are not external to ourselves though.
You've every right to disagree.. i'm not infallible!

if consiousness is internal then consciousness as to arise - somehow - by the operation of the brain.  i believe it will turn out to be so.   Until we know either way we can disagree and argue for ever but never prove anything about any '<insert grand adjective> consciousness'.
#75
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Goldtop
fine tuned =/= deliberately designed
Yet, that is pretty much the entire reasoning behind the term, "Fine Tuned"
It is the entire reasoning for theists. But when physicists use the term, it is as a metaphor, and you will hear it on the lips of physicists who are staunch atheists. Their response to it is not to theorize a creator but to theorize something like a multiverse. That is, they regard it as a question in science and they reach for more science to answer it. Of course, obviously not all physicists agree with the question, but enough do that it makes it into TED talks and the lecture halls of universities and whatnot.



#76
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
It's understandable that because a theist started this thread and listed this theory as an argument for God, you two would treat it as a religiously motivated theory. And it is -- for the religious. Confirmation bias causes them to pluck ideas and theories from science that seem to confirm their preexisting theism. But they are not unknown to misrepresent the complete concept of the science when they do this.

I saw them do something similar with "the God particle". Physicists really should be more careful about these metaphorical nicknames.


#77
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Fallaneze
Alright broheem, then listen up. You claim a god exists(you call it "God"), yet this god you believe exists is from no theistic religion. That means you have nothing to define it or describe it except your own brain. As if religious gods weren't impossible enough to prove existent, yours doesn't even have a book to describe it, or provide even speculative evidence for. For all we know, you made this god up in your head. Maybe you're schizophrenic. So, if you're really sticking with your story, then your claims fail before they even begin. You need tangible proof.
#78
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Castin
The 'god particle' meme seems to have originated as the title of a book written in 1993, but I don't remember anybody taking about 'god particles' until very recently, ie before the discovery of the higgs boson round 2013, twenty years later.

I think physicists have done their best to disown that nickname dredged up from the past when it was a publishers idea of a good comercial title for yet another another routine pop-sci book.  

But it has made people more aware of some obscure science even if very few understand it.   I don't understand it, but if it is called the 'god particle' i know it must be important so i want to know more.  The 'higgs particle' must be the most boring and uninspiring name imaginable!


#79
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Castin
but one must take a step back and consider that if certain forces in the universe had varied just a little bit in either direction -- if some god had just blown a stray breath on the cosmic scales -- carbon would never have been created at all, stars would never have formed or exploded to create the critical elements, and the very structure of the atom itself would not be able to hold together so neatly
Sure if things were different we wouldn't be here, but we would need to assume life as we know it was supposed to be for the argument to make any sense. Why would we assume that? It could be that under different variables a life unlike us could have come about, and they could be using the same fine-tuning argument! 🤔

The fine tuning argument uses logic in a backward way. It's like taking the winner of a lottery and counting all the things that happened in a particular order and assuming they were necessary and calculating the odds for and against. For instance, Bob woke up, wore his lucky shirt, got coffee, drove to store on Buckner, forgot his wallet, drove home, drove to store on Beltline, bought lottery ticket, etc, etc, and won the lottery. "If Bob had not left his wallet at home the lottery would not be won by Bob". Maybe...but someone would still win. Other than having a lottery ticket, we dont know that anything is necessary to win the lottery. It is the same with life - the universe exists (the lottery ticket), but we dont know that the variables we observe in the universe are necessary for life to exist....someone else (a different kind of life) could have 'won the lottery'! 😉

#80
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Castin
No, physicists would use the term like any one else, to make something more accurate. Or, they would use it in the same way I explained, where if the constants were changed in any way, another type of universe would form and most likely other kinds of life forms would exist.
#81
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
i think that is the 'puddle' argument, right?

The problem is that suppose the varied laws meant carbon could not form.  Basically that means you'd have to make conscious entities out of nothing but hydrogen and helium.  I'm not saying that can't be done, but I think a mix of H and He gas will be exactly the same after 13.8 billion years and won't be thinking any deep thoughts!

That universe would end well before a structure capable of thought could come about.

#82
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
The problem is that suppose the varied laws meant carbon could not form.  
That is only a problem if we assume we know all the possible ways life can manifest, and/or that life HAD to be.

Topic's author
#83
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
If only I had a list of arguments to support it... no, we don't need tangible proof. A fundamental consciousness would exist prior to the physical universe.
#84
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fallaneze
A fundamental consciousness would exist prior to the physical universe.
I think that would need to be considered an argument rather than an axiom... and it needs defense.

#85
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
A fundamental consciousness would exist prior to the physical universe.
I'm happy not to quibble over details!  I agree that what matters is whether the universe is the result of a conscious act or a mindless, planless accident.  

It seems to me you reject the latter because it implies there is no point to anything.   But not having any point or purpose isn't grounds to reject that is exactly how things are!

Why do we have kids?  There's no reason!  But if there were two species one of which reproduced and one which didn't obviously only the reproducing one would exist after one generation.   But the universe doesn't care either way - there's no conscious plan involved.

#86
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
One major problem in your mental notebook is that man labels and defines the Creator, not the other way around. God does not label and define religion, spirituality and religion are the study of a singular reality, with different names, terminologies and expressions and those expressions are recorded at our convenience. Religion and spirituality are the study of the God worlds, so one does not "need" to define God through religion even though religion defines God in many ways it is still up for the interpretation of the individual and there is no legit reason anyone needs to source one religion in reference of the Creator. They all study the Creator, not just one. That is called an Omnist view of religion and spirituality, where one recognizes and accepts that religion attempts to define God because it is compatible with the nature of God.  
Fallaneze does not need to source any particular religious reference because God is universal (meaning not restricted by any one religious source), rather you are forced to argue the contents of an eternal consciousness because that is what the Creator is. This eternal consciousness can be articulated in many ways because all of life is an expression of that Reality...AKA religion...is to define those expressions. If we are using religion and spirituality to define the nature of God then the nature of God is objective not subjective to any one religious source, rather it is a demonstrable body of spiritual evidences and facts that one can examine and or discard. In other words it doesn't matter if we propose the Creator through religion or just plain commonsense, both have value because of the objective nature of God. 
The Creator can be argued with or without religion because like all sources of information there are facts and there are misconceptions. The point of spirituality is to determine those factors through experience. 
#87
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
The Creator can be argued with or without religion. 
And the arguments fail miserably on both counts.
#88
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Fallaneze
Both (1) and (2) entail an infinite chain of preceding events

How do you figure?

The physical universe expanded from a zero-dimensional point at which all laws in the universe were broken down.The best explanation for this singularity is something non-physical that also possesses causal power
That's one explanation, but I'm not sure I would say it is "the best". How would you determine that? It could be there was no singularity and the big bang was merely a collision between branes currently beyond our detection. If that were the case, then an explanation of a hypothetical singularity is certainly not the best explanation. 

The fine-tunedness is more consistent with design.

Being *consistent* with design and being designed are not the same thing. You would need to show the appearance of design is not natural and given we have only one universe to observe I'm not sure how that could be done.

If our internal organs have a purpose, God exists.
Our internal organs have a purpose.
Therefore, God exists. 
I don't believe organs have a *purpose*. They have a function they may or may not adequately perform. What could be the purpose of a non-functioning or vestigial organ?

Any prescribed function for our internal organs is predicated on goals.

Prescribed assumes prescriber. I believe "describe" is the appropriate term and the argument cannot stand on description. This is applicable to the "designing mind" argument as well. Beauty, rationality, etc., require conscious minds to describe them, and they exist. Also, we dont necessarily find our universe intelligible. I mean, how many intuit quantum mechanics or relativity?

Moral realism is true.

Is it? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "moral realism". I withhold my rebuttal until defined and explained.

NDEs (of God) are [...] admissible in court as evidence.
I find this hard to believe, but if true, they are certainly a very weak form of evidence and, on the whole, are contradictory. Furthermore, some NDE having nothing to do with gods and undoubtedly include gods of all religions known to man.

The laws of logic [...]

...are descriptions. Without the describers (humans) they do not exist. 


#89
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Fallaneze
If only I had a list of arguments to support it...
You started out with a list of very poorly thought out assertions and have yet to actually form an argument to support your claims.

#90
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
However, Hinduism (even though a universal concept in religion) does attempt to define this reality through this description and it's pretty accurate. Consciousness does not arise from matter, matter and creation comes from the Godhead as all of this universe and beyond does...

Here is another good conception where first there is an explanation or proposition of a mind before matter....

You can reject those propositions as some atheist would, but then you need to have good solid reasoning for doing so. As of yet, spirituality has the lead in articulating the origins of our existence period.