Mr_Anony: I will use this as an all-in-one response of sorts.

My reasons for God
1. What is commonly referred to as first cause i.e. assuming we were to take the scientific view that there was a big bang billions of years ago and that the cosmos came from this mighty explosion; If this big bang were to be the starting point of all existence, time/space and everything physical as we know it, we would essentially be saying that everything started from nothing. Now this statement creates some problems because by saying that everything started from nothing we are essentially saying that the universe came into existence with no cause whatsoever. To solve this problem, we have to acknowledge a first causeless cause and we will have to admit that this first cause has to be extraphysical(i.e. transcendent of the physical realm and hence not subject to the constraints of space and time and since this first cause isn't subject to the physical, it is very difficult to explain using physical terms) else we get caught up in the circle of what caused the first cause and the one before and the one before that and so on. Also when we look at the amount of order and precision in the universe, it rules out the likelihood of a random first cause but rather suggests a an intelligent and personal one who knows what it is doing i.e. an intelligent designer who is much more intelligent and powerful than the universe and immensely so much more beyond what we can explain.
My point here is that it is overwhelmingly much more likely that the universe was created than it randomly came into existence hence a creator. God.

Mr_Anony: Up until now, no one has given me a reason why God cannot possibly exist. why then do atheists deny the existence of God by saying that God does not exist? I still submit that the basic premise of atheism is false. It is not a lack of belief rather a purposeful choice to reject God's existence hence atheism is a faith of sorts or better still an anti-faith and it is not necessarily based on logic and reason in the true sense of those words.

logicboy: Mr Anony, you are willfully ignorant. If you can not see how God of the gaps destroys your point that God is the first cause, then there is no hope for you. You claim that the first cause is not physical with no proof whatsoever and expect me to take you seriously? Sorry but scientists make claims after testing their theories and calculations. They did not pu
ll out the theory from nowhere without proof. How can you just state that the first cause was not physical? Any proof?


My answers were spot on but you chose to babble and claim that I was beating around the bush. You foolishly say that the origin of the universe is not a gap when we clearly do no know a lot of things about the origin of the universe. That is a gap that science is clearly trying to close but you insert God with no proof and you now want to claim God of the gaps doesnt apply?


My answers are simple and to the point.

-God of the gaps destroy your first cause.
-The immorality of the bible destroys your notion of divine authority on morality
-I stated that there exists no proof of God. That should be enough reason not to believe in him. 2,000 years ad all religions have failed to accurately describe an omnipotent god.

Martian:

Please, If you're not familiar with a theory, you need to leave it out of your argument. You misunderstand the big b@ng, then you introduce a first cause that's "extraphysical" which you admit is "very difficult to explain using physical terms"...................Why should anyone discuss a concept you can't even give a coherent explanmation for?

Mr_Anony:
If you are trying to define love here is the bible's description of love according to 1corinthians 13 which I agree with.

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out.Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.

Whatever does not fit this description is not love.

Mr_Anony:
The first cause cannot possibly be physical else it would be subject to time and space and hence cannot possibly be the originator of all things physical. This logic is actually very simple.

Kay 17:

As to my previous post, I meant that Good is separable from God, that even God if he is good is bound by the standards of Good.

The Christian God especially can't exist because of the presence of evil/imperfection. Taken that God is all Good and perfect and he created all, thus All reflects his nature.

Jenwitemi: If that is the bible's definition of love, then it is safe to say that the Christian God does not qualify as capable of love, because none of the descriptions of love in that quote fit that deity. Are we in agreement on this?

Mr_Anony: 2. You cannot possibly have objective morality without admitting to the existence of God. one may say that morality is subjective or is defined by self and the society and the "social contract" but then there are things that are wrong in themselves and we all know this and we just cannot justify them e.g. murder, rape etc at the other end of the spectrum are things that are right in themselves and we cannot fault them such as forgiveness, self-sacrifice etc. This makes it very difficult to claim subjective morality. A person may say "I define my own morals" to which I would ask who is to say that you are right? If I was a serial killer or serial rapist, I could define my morals as "rape and murder are good things" would I be morally right? Also what if I said "society will be my judge" then I would ask what if the society you live in is racist e.g nazi and apartheid societies of the past, does that justify racism?
For ones morality to be valid, there is need for a judge who is impartial and who is omnipresent and omniscient so as to see from all possible angles of every case as well as powerful enough to deliver fair judgement. This is where conscience comes in, this is why we feel guilty in ourselves when we have done wrong even though no one else is witness, we even feel guilty for evil thoughts when we obviously have not physically offended anyone. It is our conscience - which I would say is a much higher law than man's attempt at legality - that really makes us morally right, not necessarily empathy. Also without this supernatural judge, why conscience?
My point is that the presence of this unwritten law (conscience) in ourselves strongly suggests the presence of a judge, hence God.

Martian:

So what is an example of an "extra physical" thing?. How do you know what could possibly be "outside" the spacetime continuum when astro physicists themselves only talk about the "observable universe"? Show how simple the logic is.

Don't ignore the questions.
Why do I refer to some gods as mythological characters but mine is not even though they share the same characteristics?

What's the similarity between Jesus and Dionysius?

Mr_Anony:

You see my problem with atheists is this: They do not say "I don't know if there is a God or not" rather they say "there is no God" yet when asked how they know this for sure they babble and beat around the bush. My friend bashing religions and telling someone else that he/she is wrong does not automatically make you right.

Don't just blurt out "God of the gaps" explain to me in regard to my argument how this "God of the gaps" theory of yours actually refutes it.
I don't know If you actually have read that point at all. The first cause cannot possibly be physical else it would be subject to time and space and hence cannot possibly be the originator of all things physical. This logic is very simple.

Martian:

There is no objective morality because morality is a human concept that's dependent on a society and the people that make up that society. Since societal values tend to evolve,morality evolves also so while the Nazi's could justify their racism, other societies condemned them. Now keep in mind that one of those societies was the United States, and we all know that the white americans saw nothing immoral about being racist towards blacks. See how subjective even racism can be? But since societal values have evolved, racism tends to be frowned upon as immoral but not everyone agrees no matter what you want to believe.
Your example of "self sacrifice" being an example of "objective morality" is also myopic. If self sacrifice is moral, then suicide bombers are the epitome of morality.

If you insist on bringing god into it, I'll have to ask which god, because there is a reason why I like to call yours the Jewish Nazi and it has nothing to do with any perceived morality.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, it is either spacetime has an origin or it does not, If such an origin exists, then it is impossible for the cause to be within spacetime however it is not impossible for that cause continue to affect spacetime

Mr_Anony:
As I said; explaining God exactly as he/she/it is would sort of be like an ant explaining the internet to another ant. God is way beyond our understanding however this does not automatically imply that we can know nothing of God.

Mr_Anony:
To say that God does not exist simply because I cannot experience God physically is not a good enough reason.

Mr_Anony:
as for the other question, I do not have to answer it yet because you have not told me clearly why God must not exist

Mr_Anony:
It is useless to argue why one's version of deity differs from another's if we can't ascertain whether there are deities at all in the first place

mr anony: Mr_Anony: I will use this as an all-in-one response of sorts.

My reasons for God

1. What is commonly referred to as first cause i.e. assuming we were to take the scientific view that there was a big slam billions of years ago and that the cosmos came from this mighty explosion; If this big slam were to be the starting point of all existence, time/space and everything physical as we know it, we would essentially be saying that everything started from nothing. Now this statement creates some problems because by saying that everything started from nothing we are essentially saying that the universe came into existence with no cause whatsoever. To solve this problem, we have to acknowledge a first causeless cause and we will have to admit that this first cause has to be extraphysical(i.e. transcendent of the physical realm and hence not subject to the constraints of space and time and since this first cause isn't subject to the physical, it is very difficult to explain using physical terms) else we get caught up in the circle of what caused the first cause and the one before and the one before that and so on. Also when we look at the amount of order and precision in the universe, it rules out the likelihood of a random first cause but rather suggests a an intelligent and personal one who knows what it is doing i.e. an intelligent designer who is much more intelligent and powerful than the universe and immensely so much more beyond what we can explain.
My point here is that it is overwhelmingly much more likely that the universe was created than it randomly came into existence hence a creator. God.

mr_anony: 2. You cannot possibly have objective morality without admitting to the existence of God. one may say that morality is subjective or is defined by self and the society and the "social contract" but then there are things that are wrong in themselves and we all know this and we just cannot justify them e.g. murder, Molestation etc at the other end of the spectrum are things that are right in themselves and we cannot fault them such as forgiveness, self-sacrifice etc. This makes it very difficult to claim subjective morality. A person may say "I define my own morals" to which I would ask who is to say that you are right? If I was a serial killer or serial Molester, I could define my morals as "Molestation and murder are good things" would I be morally right? Also what if I said "society will be my judge" then I would ask what if the society you live in is racist e.g nazi and apartheid societies of the past, does that justify racism?
For ones morality to be valid, there is need for a judge who is impartial and who is omnipresent and omniscient so as to see from all possible angles of every case as well as powerful enough to deliver fair judgement. This is where conscience comes in, this is why we feel guilty in ourselves when we have done wrong even though no one else is witness, we even feel guilty for evil thoughts when we obviously have not physically offended anyone. It is our conscience - which I would say is a much higher law than man's attempt at legality - that really makes us morally right, not necessarily empathy. Also without this supernatural judge, why conscience?
My point is that the presence of this unwritten law (conscience) in ourselves strongly suggests the presence of a judge, hence God.

mr_anony: 3. At this point I will talk about Christianity; A man was born roughly two millennia ago who claimed to be the son of God, he did many miracles including healings and exorcisms in his authority. He was crucified and buried and after three days, he rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb and was seen by many eyewitnesses including skeptics and unbelievers. This was widely preached by Christ's disciples within days after his death and resurrection. I am yet to come across any substantial counter-claim during that period considering that it would be fresh in their minds at the time and easy to disprove. The disciples of Christ were even willing to die for this truth every one of them. One can die for the lies of another (especially if he believes it the truth) but it is highly unlikely for one to die for a lie he made up himself. Not one single apostle denied the death and resurrection of Christ even to the point of torture and death, this suggests that they must have believed it to be true. The strongest evidence for christianity is the resurrection of Christ. Christianity is based on Jesus Christ and faith in Christ is justified because He claimed to be the Son of God and proved it by rising from the dead. The meaning of the word "christian" is "like Christ" so essentially if one does not accept Christ and walk in his path, such a person is not a christian. It doesn't matter if the person goes to a church or not. I have not yet seen anyone morally criticize Christ's character successfully. No one can morally fault the principles of christianity in all sincerity.
Jesus Christ is perfect and I put my faith in Him

Mr_Anony:
That something was or is acceptable at some point does not necessarily make it good

Mr_Anony:
if morality is really that subjective, how come one can describe one society as evil and another as good?

Mr_Anony:
Perhaps, self-sacrifice was a bad example in this instance but that doesn't mean that there are things that are not definitely good or definitely bad despite the society or the individual or the circumstances and people know this. On this basis morality can truly be judged

Mr_Anony:
On this basis morality can truly be judged. Now apart from a being that sees all, knows all and is able to deliver fair judgement, who/what else is fit for this task?

Martian:

So now it's semantics time. Origin has replaced cause but you're still not saying anything. What origin?



"God" is way beyond our understanding yet you feel you're right even though you keep admitting that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.



You can't explain it, you can't feel it, you say it exists outside spacetime, you don't know it's nature, it is way beyond your understanding but you think it's a forgone conclusion that THE GREAT LEPRECHAUN God exists?



I didn't say god must not exist, I'm saying you're yet to give a coherent explanation of god.



So are you admitting again that you can't ascertain whether gods exist at all? lol

Mr_Anony:
My friend, remember the problem is not "describe God in detail" but "does God exist or not?"

Kay 17:

You have made lots of mistakes here, first the big bang theory postulates an expansion, not explosion from a singularity which in effect is not nothing but everything. All energy and matter are accountable to it. Therefore the big bang doesn't violate any logic.

The uncaused cause thought doesn't pay attention to the designs and complexity of the uncaused cause and actually violates its own premise that everything needs a cause. The hopelessness of infinite regress is buttresses it.

Logicboy has already discussed God of Gaps, so I wouldn't touch on that. However IF the Creator is not physcial and transcendental, then he can't be the cause of a physical world! Where would the physical substance of the universe have come from?!

Taking that time came with the big bang, speaking about a "before" or cause of singularity will be nonsensical wouldn't it? Can there be a prior moment without time?

I wonder what use intelligence would have in a platform of emptiness. No rules/principles or laws.

Martian:

lol, you're not getting off that easy. I'm not a proponent of gods but you're. So, if you can give a coherent explanation of what your god is then maybe we can determnine if it exists or belongs in the same league as Zeus, Kabezya Mpungu, Eledumare and my main man THE GREAT LEPRECHAUN.

Mr_Anony:
@Martian lol, I just couldn't let this go. I have given arguments as to why God must exist, please give me arguments as to why God must not exist

Mr_Anony:
Note we are not arguing over types of God, but God. yes or no?

Mr_Anony:

The point isn't necessarily the about exact nature of the big bang - I am not so much concerned about whether the theory of the big bang is accurate or not. What I am concerned about is whether the universe began at all or is it infinite. Since the universe has a beginning, then it must have been caused by something otherwise we would be saying that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.
Now whatever caused the universe to come into existence must in itself be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. This means that it is either this cause is an abstract concept such as shape, colors and numbers or it is a personal (by personal, I don't mean human) mind. Since we know that abstract concepts cannot cause anything into being, we are left with an intelligent personal mind or being. For this reason it is not necessary for God to create the substance of the universe from pre-existing physical substances.
For instance assuming we design and program a virtual world software, giving it specific laws and leave it to run on the intelligence of some super-computer. The characters in this virtual world would not be able to explain the physical world because it is alien to their world and the rules may be wildly different, however this does not mean that they cannot be affected by the computer hardware running their world or that the computer does not exist.(this analogy is putting it as best as I can in human terms and doesn't necessarily exactly describe accurately the nature of first cause).

mr _anony: My point still remains that no one can say that there is no God with any certainty or at least make any meaningful argument as to why God must not exist. At best what the atheist does is to wait for a "God statement" and try to falsify it. this does not prove his stance to be right in any way whatsoever

Mr_Anony:

Now whatever caused the universe to come into existence must in itself be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. This means that it is either this cause is an abstract concept such as shape, colors and numbers or it is a personal (by personal, I don't mean human) mind.

Mr_Anony:

You see my problem with atheists is this: [b[size=15pt]]They do not say "I don't know if there is a God or not" rather they say "there is no God" yet when asked how they know this for sure they babble and beat around the bush.[/size][/b] My friend bashing religions and telling someone else that he/she is wrong does not automatically make you right.

Don't just blurt out "God of the gaps" explain to me in regard to my argument how this "God of the gaps" theory of yours actually refutes it.
I don't know If you actually have read that point at all. The first cause cannot possibly be physical else it would be subject to time and space and hence cannot possibly be the originator of all things physical. This logic is very simple.

Mr_Anony:

You see my problem with atheists is this: [size=25pt]They do not say "I don't know if there is a God or not" rather they say "there is no God" yet when asked how they know this for sure they babble and beat around the bush.[/size] My friend bashing religions and telling someone else that he/she is wrong does not automatically make you right.

Don't just blurt out "God of the gaps" explain to me in regard to my argument how this "God of the gaps" theory of yours actually refutes it.
I don't know If you actually have read that point at all. The first cause cannot possibly be physical else it would be subject to time and space and hence cannot possibly be the originator of all things physical. This logic is very simple.

hisblud:
I Cheerlead for Mr Anony because I have nothing to say.

Anony: The first cause cannot possibly be physical else it would be subject to time and space and hence cannot possibly be the originator of all things physical.

Now whatever caused the universe to come into existence must in itself be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. This means that it is either this cause is an abstract concept such as shape, colors and numbers or it is a personal (by personal, I don't mean human) mind.

Jenwitemi: [size=16pt]Hey. Not so fast, bro. Who told you that whatever caused the universe into existence has to be uncaused or even immaterial? On what principle is this based? For all we know, we could be in an eternal loop of the caused causes. Billions upon billions of universes being caused into existence by billions upon billions of causes that are also caused into existence themselves[/size].

Martian:

And your arguments have been shown not to be sound and they are the same old baseless arguments that theists come up with. You can't make something up, say it must exist, give no coherent description of what it is, then ask someone else why that thing must not exist. I can't say "God" must not exist because I don't know what "God" is. If you say it's the "creator" or it's a "diety", then I must conclude that it's not different from other "creators" like Obatala, Zeus, Jupiter, Pitr, Chukwu etc. Man made mythological characters.

Kay 17: I doubt if you read my post.

God is first a formless/shapeless idea, until whoever who introduces it, describes and defines what it is, it still remains an unknown idea/formless one. You can't ask me to search for what I have no idea of.

logicboy:

Mr Anony is wrong. Stop cheerleading.[size=18pt] Atheist clearly state that there has never been any evidence for the existence of God which is a fact.[/size]

hisblud: am i getting on someone's nerve, ouch kpele oo! Why shouldnt i support what i CHOOSE to support .

Mr_Anony:

If I understand what you are saying, you are telling me that conscience transcends religion

Mr_Anony:

I believe you were not refering to karma when you spoke of the golden rule.

Mr_Anony:
Notice that I am not saying that some people have a conscience while others don't, rather what i am saying is that everyone has a conscience but to obey your conscience you need God

Mr_Anony:
especially in christianity since the golden rule you have quoted incidentally happens to be the summary of the law and the prophets according to Jesus Christ).

Mr_Anony:
Without a diety, you might as well ignore your conscience even though it pricks you because there will be no need to obey your conscience or do what is right since there is no fear of punishment or hope reward.