Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Paul91]

The teleological argument is strongest, so I'll assume there is a Creator God...

If you were created by a Creator, and that Creator wishes to have an ongoing relationship with you, then it is up to you to establish and maintain that relationship, should you so choose.

Proof, I believe, of God would come from the revelation of His unconditional love. If we discover that God is unconditionally loving towards us, then faith (optimistic conviction) would be established and a "father-son" relationship would grow over time.

Is that difficult to understand for an atheist? I wouldn't say the belief is on the same level as having an imaginary friend.

[Joshua10]

Electromechanical processes are responsible for the “toggling” binary data within the brain and are fully responsible for the workings of the cosmos as well.Mythical atheistic gravitational forces wished up from flowery and massaged mathematical formulas play no part in this process.

The 4 off magnetic interactions of NN,SN,NS,SS or binary logic 1,1….0,1….1,0…..0.0 or ++….+-….-+….— interactions do not provide a balance.They only produce reactions I.e. attraction or repulsion in nature.

Inorder to obtain balance one requires “TOGGLING” + and - on both sides of the fence to produce a vibrational balance which is exactly what is observed in nature and as I have suggested is what holds matter together.It ain’t glue (gluons) as the atheists claim with their half logic science that’s for sure.

The correct formula for nature therefore is Separated and toggling + and- forces = Separated and toggling + and - forces.

The formula for balance is not +=- and -=+ as atheistic science claims from its misguided foundational moral cancelling out which has resulted in atheism going on to try and redefine natures science with an unknown force gravity.

Electromechanical processes perfectly explain the workings of the cosmos and the brain.

[Belindi]

The teleological argument is strongest, so I'll assume there is a Creator God...

If you were created by a Creator, and that Creator wishes to have an ongoing relationship with you, then it is up to you to establish and maintain that relationship, should you so choose.

Proof, I believe, of God would come from the revelation of His unconditional love. If we discover that God is unconditionally loving towards us, then faith (optimistic conviction) would be established and a "father-son" relationship would grow over time.

Is that difficult to understand for an atheist? I wouldn't say the belief is on the same level as having an imaginary friend.

Humans were and are created by a creator, or Creator. The creator , or Creator, is nature, or Nature.

[Joshua10]

The teleological argument is strongest, so I'll assume there is a Creator God...

If you were created by a Creator, and that Creator wishes to have an ongoing relationship with you, then it is up to you to establish and maintain that relationship, should you so choose.

Proof, I believe, of God would come from the revelation of His unconditional love. If we discover that God is unconditionally loving towards us, then faith (optimistic conviction) would be established and a "father-son" relationship would grow over time.

Is that difficult to understand for an atheist? I wouldn't say the belief is on the same level as having an imaginary friend.

Humans were and are created by a creator, or Creator. The creator , or Creator, is nature, or Nature.

I would agree to the possibility that we have been created, nature as well.Why not?

[Charlemagne]

The existence of God is possible to prove in a tentative way to anyone with an open mind, but not an absolute way to anyone who does not want to believe in God, such as Bertrand Russell, who mocked the Christian God as an irrational fantasy. I prefer to think of the God not as an irrational fantasy, nor as a rational being, but as a transrational being. If God exists, it stands to reason we cannot know him now as we might know him later if we should ever deserve to know him later. The atheist cannot learn God. Recognizing God is not learned, but earned. Even so, Pascal's wager argument, while it does not prove the existence of God, proves why we must believe in God. Every atheist will be tempted on his deathbed for that very reason.

[Pattern-chaser]

The existence of God is possible to prove in a tentative way to anyone with an open mind, but not an absolute way...

You can't "prove" anything "in a tentative way". Proof is not tentative, it's absolute, or something very close to it. In a scientific sense, it is quite impossible to prove (or disprove) anything to do with God, because there is no (scientifically-acceptable) evidence. None at all.

I am a believer, but I do not assert the real-world existence of God, as some do. How can/could I, without any evidence at all? God is a spiritual and aspirational truth, quite different from a scientific, spacetime, truth. Science and religion both seek knowledge, but it isn't the same type of knowledge, never mind the same knowledge. Horses for courses, as they say!

[Charlemagne]

By "tentative" I meant to say, and should have said, plausible, though not absolute in the way that Bertrand Russell would have required. The Big Bang theory alone make the existence of a Creator God plausible. "Let there be light" is what God says at the creation. Science has already argued plausibly that the early universe was filled with light and nothing else. That is a tentative or plausible theory, but not a fact, since we were never there to see the early universe.

[Charlemagne]

The question that really baffles me is why someone asks if there is a reason to believe in God when proof is impossible, while at the same time not first answering the question: what is the reason for believing there is no God when it is impossible to prove that?

[LuckyR]

The question that really baffles me is why someone asks if there is a reason to believe in God when proof is impossible, while at the same time not first answering the question: what is the reason for believing there is no God when it is impossible to prove that?

Because many only believe what they can be shown. They can't be shown a god, so they don't believe. You're right they can't be shown proof of no gods, but they're starting with a belief in nothing and building up from there. Your argument makes sense for the person who starts out believing in everything and then drops those that can be disproven. You can't disprove gods, so they believe in them. I don't know anyone who thinks like that.

[Sy Borg]

In truth, the Sun is our creator. It doesn't get nearly enough credit IMO.

[Joshua10]

In truth, the Sun is our creator. It doesn't get nearly enough credit IMO.

You are preaching your religious beliefs again Sy Borg.You told me that that was against forum rules.That is hypocritical.You HOPE the Sun is our creator because you can’t definitively prove it.If you think you can then provide us all with the definitive proof.

[Belindi]

In truth, the Sun is our creator. It doesn't get nearly enough credit IMO.

You are preaching your religious beliefs again Sy Borg.You told me that that was against forum rules.That is hypocritical.You HOPE the Sun is our creator because you can’t definitively prove it.If you think you can then provide us all with the definitive proof.

Joshua, you are taking on too much for your capability. Most of us here are atheists of one sort or another. Most of us atheists can see the unreason of your arguments, which you apparently cannot do. Philosophers and trained theologists can understand opposed points of view.

Far from trying to discourage you I urge you to learn science not half -baked theories.

[Joshua10]

In truth, the Sun is our creator. It doesn't get nearly enough credit IMO.

You are preaching your religious beliefs again Sy Borg.You told me that that was against forum rules.That is hypocritical.You HOPE the Sun is our creator because you can’t definitively prove it.If you think you can then provide us all with the definitive proof.

Joshua, you are taking on too much for your capability. Most of us here are atheists of one sort or another. Most of us atheists can see the unreason of your arguments, which you apparently cannot do. Philosophers and trained theologists can understand opposed points of view.

Far from trying to discourage you I urge you to learn science not half -baked theories.

Come on Belindi.Most of the forums these days do preach the atheistic religions or belief systems.They are religious belief systems until they have definitive proof which up to yet none of them have.We live in a predominantly atheistic world.I do know about natures science and philosophy and it ain’t atheistic science and philosophy.i know as much about magnetic interactions as I need to know which confirms that atheistic science and philosophy is based upon half logic.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that it is impossible to understand the workings of the brain and mind until one’s gets the science right.I would suggest that Atheistic science is flawed.

[Belindi]

In truth, the Sun is our creator. It doesn't get nearly enough credit IMO.

You are preaching your religious beliefs again Sy Borg.You told me that that was against forum rules.That is hypocritical.You HOPE the Sun is our creator because you can’t definitively prove it.If you think you can then provide us all with the definitive proof.

Joshua, you are taking on too much for your capability. Most of us here are atheists of one sort or another. Most of us atheists can see the unreason of your arguments, which you apparently cannot do. Philosophers and trained theologists can understand opposed points of view.

Far from trying to discourage you I urge you to learn science not half -baked theories.

Come on Belindi.Most of the forums these days do preach the atheistic religions or belief systems.They are religious belief systems until they have definitive proof which up to yet none of them have.We live in a predominantly atheistic world.I do know about natures science and philosophy and it ain’t atheistic science and philosophy.i know as much about magnetic interactions as I need to know which confirms that atheistic science and philosophy is based upon half logic.

Joshua, nobody knows enough, not even you.