Can you please let us know of any right or good arguments (in favour of the existence of God) that theists (on this forum and elsewhere) have ever made to you?

If there are none, please say so.

Thank you.

Oya.

No disrespect Deep,

But is it just me or this is getting kinda silly?

striktlymi: No disrespect Deep,

But is it just me or this is getting kinda silly?

striktlymi: No disrespect Deep,

But is it just me or this is getting kinda silly?

For once, I agree with Striky

^^^ I have my reasons. The point is about dogmatism and fanaticism. Even I would not claim that I have never heard a good atheistic argument. I wonder if he would say he has never heard a good theistic argument. I simply seek to find out exactly how fanatical the chap is.

What about you, logicboy, can you take up the question? Have you ever heard what you consider to be a good theistic argument for the existence of God, or are there none, in your opinion.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:
^^^ I have my reasons. The point is about dogmatism and fanaticism. Even I would not claim that I have never heard a good atheistic argument. I wonder if he would say he has never heard a good theistic argument. I simply seek to find out exactly how fanatical the chap is.

What about you, logicboy, can you take up the question? Have you ever heard what you consider to be a good theistic argument for the existence of God, or are there none, in your opinion.

Thanks.

The problem is the definition of "god".....A deistic god could exist but he wouldnt be a "god" in the sense that he would only be raw energy or some alien lifeform.

So, I truly doubt that there is a good theistic argument

Logicboy03:


The problem is the definition of "god".....A deistic god could exist but he wouldnt be a "god" in the sense that he would only be raw energy or some alien lifeform.

So, I truly doubt that there is a good theistic argument

Dont you think your second sentence contradicts your first?

Deep Sight:

Dont you think your second sentence contradicts your first?

nope.....the first sentence already highlights the problem of the deistic god.

Logicboy03:



nope.....the first sentence already highlights the problem of the deistic god.

It does not say that it is not the source, or the creator, it does not say that it does not exist.

If you have read some of my older posts, you will see that the existence of that source is what I argue; not that you need to go to church or mosque or even consciously worship it.

That source (God) would be too transcendental to be concerned about you kneeling down to acknowledge it.

Deep Sight:

It does not say that it is not the source, or the creator, it does not say that it does not exist.

If you have read some of my older posts, you will see that the existence of that source is what I argue; not that you need to go to church or mosque or even consciously worship it.

That source (God) would be too transcendental to be concerned about you kneeling down to acknowledge it.

Agreed but why call it god?

Your argument is only philsophical not scientific.

Your god has no physical properties.....how can something exist without physical properties?

Your deist god falls apart when questioned

For me, it would be the 'uncaused cause' argument..

I'm yet to see any good arguments for a being that interacts with this world or gives it any sort of purpose.

Logicboy03:


Agreed but why call it god?

Your argument is only philsophical not scientific.

Your god has no physical properties.....how can something exist without physical properties?

Your deist god falls apart when questioned

What are the physical properties of thoughts and ideas?

Mind you, i did not ask where they arose from.

I ask you what their physical properties are.

Think on this carefully.

Deepsight what is the difference between you and Muskeeto in terms of your beliefs/positions about god?

Deep Sight:

What are the physical properties of thoughts and ideas?[/b]

Mind you, i did not ask where they arose from.

I ask you [b]what their physical properties are.

Think on this carefully.

Lol....do thoughts and ideas exist on their own? Thoughts and ideas are dependent on the brain of an intelligent being.

As for the physical properties of thoughts and ideas, they are memory based. Stored images on the hard drive (brain) of an intelligent being. Can you have an idea/thought about football without images of footballs, stadiums and players flooding your head? Werent those images phyiscally seen with your eyes and stored in your brain?




Now, that your question has been answered. Please explain how it is possible to exist without physical properties. Have yo personally known anyanimal or being that has no phyical presence?

musKeeto: For me, it would be the 'uncaused cause' argument..

I'm yet to see any good arguments for a being that interacts with this world or gives it any sort of purpose.

The phrase "uncaused cause" is quite the oxymoronic/paradoxical phrase in itself.

The theists solve a paradox (the infinite regress of past events) with another paradox of an uncaused cause. A being with no history or past. Doesnt make sense

Logicboy03:


The phrase "uncaused cause" is quite the oxymoronic/paradoxical phrase in itself.

The theists solve a paradox (the infinite regress of past events) with another paradox of an uncaused cause. A being with no history or past. Doesnt make sense

Yet the universe is supposed to be self-existent and uncaused. Which either implies that it is eternal or self-created. A paradox too.

Uyi Iredia:

Yet the universe is supposed to be self-existent and uncaused. Which either implies that it is eternal or self-created. A paradox too.

We already know that our universe has a beginning...so keept your strawman to yourself.

Logicboy03:
The theists solve a paradox (the infinite regress of past events) with another paradox of an uncaused cause. A being with no history or past. Doesnt make sense

Which do you think is more plausible?

Deep Sight:
Can you please let us know of any right or good arguments (in favour of the existence of God) that theists (on this forum and elsewhere) have ever made to you?

If there are none, please say so.

Thank you.

Oya.

Looks like you have a real hard-on for me and I don't know why.

I haven't encountered any right or good arguments in favour of the existence of their Gods. Do you have any? I'm willing to hear your best three.

Logicboy03:


We already know that our universe has a beginning...so keept your strawman to yourself.

So what caused it to begin ? Itself !

musKeeto:

Which do you think is more plausible?

They both are problematic.

Uyi Iredia:

So what caused it to begin ? Itself !

Jehovah omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, Almighty, victorious, elohim, ayam that ayam, jehova shama, jehova nissi, jehova ebenezer, alpha and omega, the beginning and the end,el shadai, lion of the tribe of judah(only), all consuming fire, etc

Am I correct?

thehomer:

Looks like you have a real hard-on for me and I don't know why.

Lol, get over yourself already. Yes, I do have a hard on for ALL strict materialist atheists, I am just having a hard time finding the time to thoroughly screw them.

Although of course, these people have been serially r.aped already in the past, and several times on this forum.

From which, they emerged so traumatized, that they deny that it has ever occurred. This has happened to you more often than any other, with me as the r.apist.

I haven't encountered any right or good arguments in favour of the existence of [size=16pt]their[/size] Gods. Do you have any? I'm willing to hear your best three.

With the bold, you evade the question.

Don't bother attempting to correct it, or even respond. It is clear where this will go. A cesspit of definitions where we have been before. You have not answered the question in my OP, and I dont believe you ever will. I'll give up here. Good morning.

Logicboy03:
The theists solve a paradox (the infinite regress of past events) with another paradox of an uncaused cause. A being with no history or past. Doesnt make sense

musKeeto:

Which do you think is more plausible?

Logicboy03:
They both are problematic.

You know this isn't an answer, right?

Anyways, I think this is the answer I needed..

Logicboy03:
A deistic god could exist but he wouldnt be a "god" in the sense that he would only be raw energy or some alien lifeform.

musKeeto:





You know this isn't an answer, right?

Anyways, I think this is the answer I needed..

Wrong....still doesnt mean tha the deist god (which wouldnt be a god) is more probable.

Logicboy03:



Wrong....still doesnt mean tha the deist god (which wouldnt be a god) is more probable.

Which is more plausible?

Infinite regress, or a being or whatever that starts it all off..

Think of it like it's a stack of dominoes and you're at the center...

musKeeto:

Which is more plausible?

Infinite regress, or a being or whatever that starts it all off..

Think of it like it's a stack of dominoes and you're at the center...

It is like asking me what is more plausible between leprechaun gold and fairy magic.



However, infinite regress as a concept is more plausible. We know that numbers and any concept with numbers will run into such paradoxes.


The thing about the past is that you can keep going back to a time before any specific time.

The time (spacetime) of our universe might have a beginning but that doesnt mean that time outside our universe has a beginning.

Oh boy, na wa to you... Smh..

Logicboy03:
However, infinite regress as a concept is more plausible. We know that numbers and any concept with numbers will run into such paradoxes.
The thing about the past is that you can keep going back to a time before any specific time.
The time (spacetime) of our universe might have a beginning but that doesnt mean that time outside our universe has a beginning.

Gotcha..

musKeeto: Oh boy, na wa to you... Smh..



Gotcha..

So what do you think?

Logicboy03:


So what do you think?

Well, we know little about our universe, about 4% I hear..

I don't think we have enough knowledge to accurately say how it originated. All we can do is speculate.

For now, we have two options: either the universe has always been(it's self existent) or GOD (BEING; whether it was intelligent or not is a different matter) that started it.

Both options raise more questions than they answer. I think a being outside the universe is more plausible, imo.

Now, if we know just 4% of our universe, who are we to even speculate about whatever might exist outside it? Our logic/reason will always be limited by our knowledge..

May the speculations continue..

musKeeto:

Well, we know little about our universe, about 4% I hear..

I don't think we have enough knowledge to accurately say how it originated. All we can do is speculate.

For now, we have two options: either the universe has always been(it's self existent) or GOD (BEING; whether it was intelligent or not is a different matter) that started it.

Both options raise more questions than they answer. I think a being outside the universe is more plausible, imo.

Now, if we know just 4% of our universe, who are we to even speculate about whatever might exist outside it? Our logic/reason will always be limited by our knowledge..

May the speculations continue..

Infinite regress of time is more plausible. We can explain it, we can describe it we can mathematically model it.


God on the other hand, is not explainable neither can she be modelled.

^^^ You already said "or some alien life form". . .

# DELUDING YASEF.