All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained - Christianity Etc - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum › Nairaland General › Christianity Etc › All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained (951 Views)
| All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 10:51am On Jul 18, 2025*. Modified: 11:51am On Jul 18, 2025 |
It's a long read. Search the title above on YouTube to watch a video (from Redeemed Zoomer) with these explanations instead. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 10:58am On Jul 18, 2025 |
[color=#006400]Evidentialism:[/color] Tries to argue for God by giving evidence of supernatural events. For example, many Christians believe the [color=#2E8B57]resurrection of Christ[/color] can be historically proven because: – There were many eyewitnesses – They died for their faith – And generally, people [color=#8B0000]don’t die for something they know is false[/color] Sometimes, people also cite: – [color=#00008B]Demonic possessions[/color], where people speak unknown languages – [color=#2F4F4F]Near-death experiences[/color], where people see things they shouldn't be able to [color=#006400]The Moral Argument:[/color] Objective morality is only real if God is real. But [color=#00008B]objective morality is real[/color] →Therefore, God is real. [color=#2F4F4F]Example:[/color] Is cannibalism good or bad? A: “I think it’s good.” B: “I think it’s bad.” So... which one is [color=#8B0000]actually[/color] correct? B can only be right if there’s a [color=#00008B]supreme authority[/color] that says cannibalism is bad. That authority is what we would call God. [color=#006400]The Cosmological Argument:[/color] Everything that happens has a cause. That cause has a cause. And so on. But [color=#8B0000]this chain can’t go on forever[/color]. Eventually, there must be: – A first cause – An unmoved mover – An uncaused causer – An unchanged changer This being must be: – [color=#2E8B57]Eternal[/color] (can’t start or stop existing) – [color=#00008B]Outside the universe[/color] (everything inside is caused) – All-powerful (can move anything but cannot be moved) This, we call God. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 11:09am On Jul 18, 2025 |
[color=#006400]Act and Potency Argument:[/color] Everything is a mix of: – Act: What it is – Potency: What it could become Example: – A baby is alive → It could become an adult – An apple is red → It could be eaten – You have the potency to be strong, but maybe not yet When something changes, a potency is being actualized. But this can’t go back forever. So, we need an unactualized actualizer—a being who is [color=#00008B]pure act[/color]. This being has no potential, only actuality. That means: – [color=#2E8B57]Eternal[/color] (no potential to not exist) – All-powerful (nothing else can affect Him) – Unchanging This is the most complex argument. Originally from Aristotle, developed by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles. [color=#006400]Pascal’s Wager:[/color] A thought experiment, not a proof. – If you're an atheist and [color=#8B0000]atheism is true[/color]: You gain/lose nothing – If you're an atheist and God is real: You could [color=#8B0000]lose everything[/color] – If you believe in God and [color=#8B0000]atheism is true[/color]: Still neutral – If you believe in God and God is real: You could gain everything So, [color=#00008B]it's a safer bet to believe in God[/color]. [color=#006400]Teleological Argument (Design):[/color] Nature seems to have purpose, like a machine → implies a [color=#00008B]designer[/color] Examples: – [color=#2E8B57]Human cells[/color] – [color=#2E8B57]The ecosystem[/color] Darwinian evolution explains some complexity, but not all. Like: – The four physical constants: Gravitational constant Electron charge Strong nuclear force Weak nuclear force If any of these were even [color=#8B0000]slightly different[/color], the universe would collapse. [Like if gravity was slightly stronger or weaker, or the force holding atomic particle together was even 2% stronger or weaker. Among the billions of galaxies allegedly out there, the chances of everything happening just right is 1 in 10 duotrigintillion, that's to say you have a better chance at winning the lottery 10 billion billion billion billion times IN A ROW.] |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 11:13am On Jul 18, 2025 |
[color=#006400]Ontological Argument:[/color] God = That than which nothing greater can be conceived Therefore, God must be: – All-powerful – All-knowing – All-good – Existing (because existing is better than not). Question: "But you can’t just think something into existence. If a pizza has all these qualities, do we then call it God?" Actually, you can’t do that with pizza, because: – Pizza has [color=#8B0000]limitations[/color] (size, perishability) – A pizza that’s indestructible and infinite wouldn’t be pizza anymore – It would be [color=#00008B]God[/color] [color=#006400]Argument from Personal Experience:[/color] Not convincing to others, but very convincing to oneself. – Supernatural events – Answered prayers – Unlikely coincidences [color=#006400]Transcendental Argument:[/color] Without God, nothing makes sense. We assume: – Logic – Consistency in nature – Truth But we [color=#8B0000]can’t scientifically prove[/color] any of those assumptions. They only make sense if grounded in the mind of God. Without God → [color=#8B0000]no foundation for knowledge[/color] |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 11:15am On Jul 18, 2025 |
[color=#006400]Argument from Consciousness:[/color] Consciousness cannot be explained by material means. – Machines can be reduced to parts – Brains can be studied – But experience (like “seeing yellow”) can’t be dissected You can’t know: – If we all see the same colors – If you’re the only conscious being Consciousness seems to require something immaterial → a [color=#00008B]soul[/color] [color=#006400]Argument from Mathematics:[/color] Math points to an infinite, immaterial reality. – Simple math = real-world – Advanced math = abstract, yet it still works Important numbers: – 1, 0, i, e, π – All come together in [color=#00008B]Euler’s Identity[/color] → an elegant, beautiful equation Leonhard Euler, who discovered it, saw this as proof that God designed math. He was also a [color=#2F4F4F]devout Calvinist[/color]. Also: The Mandelbrot Set – Generated by a simple formula – Infinitely complex – Not found anywhere in the universe → Therefore, its creator must be [color=#00008B]infinite and beyond our universe[/color] [color=#8B0000]And finally… the best argument of all:[/color] Trust me, bro. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 11:50am On Jul 18, 2025 |
All (Popular) Arguments Against God [https://www.nairaland.com/8477542/all-atheist-arguments-explained#136141320] |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by LordReed(m): 10:46am On Jul 20, 2025 |
I prefer we skip the arguments and go straight to examining the evidence. PulsingPurple: |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by Dtruthspeaker: 11:34am On Jul 20, 2025 |
LordReed:And the evidence is clearly that no thing in this world that we know created itself. You know I will say "change of Post" as you deviate from the topic, so, don't say it |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 12:40pm On Jul 20, 2025*. Modified: 1:43pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
LordReed:Okay? It's worth noting that we've talked before on one of my older accounts. Back then I wasn't this knowledgeable and I still couldn't process your points as being more valid than my dumber points at the time. You've also talked before on these topics countless times with so many people. What am I saying? At the end of the day we're the same people talking about Faith & Fate on this forum for the past 3 years+ at least and no one has been able to convince the other (even Max hasn't been able to convince his fellow "Christians" that JW is the way, AntiChrisstian hasn't been able to prove to us why Islam is the way, you have not been able to convince one theist I'm aware of into atheism). Conclusion? By "examining the evidence" we'd still argue. All arguments lead to null, not necessarily because we're not presenting our points well, but mostly cos of the psychology behind trying to oppose someone's beliefs. And it gets worse when the other party is not OPEN-MINDED. We already have good ideas of all points the other party will present. So let's entertain ourselves instead. How do we make this NOT about convincing the other OR showcasing our knowledge OR mockery OR anything in that area? How do we just make this fun, entertaining? I need to hear your rules. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by Cashme29: 1:38pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
For me though, believing in something is not something I "choose" to do. NO! I must have reason enough to totally convince me, not just to shut me up in an argument. It's why I don't argue about the existence of a god or spirits. I am not convinced yet. I still see it this way: If there is a god, then he/she/it is not all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. He/She/It cannot be all of these. Because if they are all-powerful, it means they can actually stop human and animal suffering, but they won't; so they are not all-loving. If they are all-loving, then they want to stop all these suffering, but they can't; so they are not all-powerful. Or maybe they are just some all-knowing, all-powerful sadistic maniac who enjoys seeing animals kill each other, people suffer sickness and enjoys playing games with his creations. Maybe they already know from the start that the whole idea of a "god" will not make sense to someone like me, yet they chose to create me anyways just so they can use me as fodder for their furnace. For me, I have finally given up even trying to convince myself of the existence of a god; because after all the arguments I give myself for and against, I always end up with an even bigger question: "If there is a god at all, and he/she/it is everything we are told they are, then why do I or anyone at all need to be convinced of their existence? Why should anyone at all need to argue for their existence? There shouldn't even be a debate. Maybe there is a debate only because there truly is no god anywhere and we know deep within us. But if there IS a GOD, then honestly, he/she/it has to find me him/her/itself, because obviously, I am too dumb to see it, and all I get is the believers telling me I am just too arrogant to admit something they consider all too obvious. I, on the other hand, know that I am being very honest with myself. I don't ever want to turn anyone into an atheist; I will rather they "open their eyes" themselves to the "truth" of it. And if there is a god, I also hope I get to get my eyes opened to this "truth;" but much more than that, I hope I get to accept this god, because honestly, I don't like what they are doing with the world. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by LordReed(m): 1:43pm On Jul 20, 2025*. Modified: 2:22pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
PulsingPurple:Maybe, maybe not. 8½ years ago I was a Christian, 8 years ago I was not. Sure I wasn't swayed by anything anyone said on here but it made me think for myself. I don’t come on here attempting to make people change their beliefs, I am here to make people think more carefully about the things they say, whatever it is. As for rules of engagement, I think simple works for me. Present your evidence, let us discuss the validity and the reason why you think it points to a god. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 2:14pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
Cashme29:Absolutely, for you. I also think that should be the way. But you know it still gets complicated, seeing what people take as conclusions to draw this "conviction". For instance, people who unapologetically support the idea that trans-women are to be considered as real women have a lot of points up their sleeves. You (who might not support) will see those exact same points but you'll lack the capacity to draw conclusion that lead to convincing... I'm just saying. It's like a paradox, believing ends up being something we choose to do. 🌚 But don't mind me, I get you perfectly. I think I'm like you sef. I am not convinced yet. I still see it this way:Yes we've heard this point, and it's a good one. But here's another POV: What if we start by defining God, Love, the idea of being all-Powerful, all-Knowing? What if your concept of God is different from mine, and mine allows me to believe in a God that allows for all you've mentioned? Here's a deal breaker first of all: If there's a God that's supposedly infinitely wiser than we mere mortals, then I think mere mortals will lack the capacity to understand why he acts the way he acts. It's all over biology. The argument here is trying to accept only a God that fits into your conceived personality. But you don't believe in God right? So that leaves this types of arguments to theists who already believe in a God and are now trying to sort out which personality seems best for the one true God. That aside, I believe God is all about His own PRINCIPLES. Picture a programmer creating an open world game and setting all the rules, every single rule down to the detail including the consequences for rights and wrong, a judgement system, the physics behind movement, stuff like that. A character in the game jumps forward from the edge of a tall building and falls to death, no one complains, they blame the character because they understand those part of the rules. A random police car is driving by, no one really complains, they don't really know the rules (the lines of code) behind that particular timing but they're kinda used to it so no p. A random maniac in the game does something that leads to chaos, plenty characters die, do you blame the creator for the deaths? Now replace the whole analogy with the scale of this world and add one term: Butterfly Effect. Things lead to things that lead to things and compound over time to lead to more things, which wouldn't have been obvious from the beginning and might have not been intentional, but since the possibility was there, there was always room for it to happen. The God I believe in illustrates that the time we have here is like the tip of an iceberg, compared to the time after this which is supposed to be filled with perfect living conditions. Then also the God I believe in is in the process of clearing the mess, according to Him so in my case I'm just waiting it out. Then a thought: If God were to use his full God power to repay precise punishment for each wickedness and wrongdoing in general, wouldn't that also contradict His God-ness? Seeing that He isn't patient, a key characteristic of someone who's meant to be displaying Love. From human nature, how have parents shown Love? If God were that precise and instantaneous with punishments, don't you think you might be getting some form of punishment for something you're not even aware of, maybe indirectly killing someone? Sorry my replies might be a bit longer at times, bear with me. 🙏 |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 2:15pm On Jul 20, 2025*. Modified: 2:39pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
Cashme29:Well, maybe? Goes back to the definition of God tho. Question: What if I say my God isn't the one who throws people into furnaces JUST LIKE THAT? Would you have a reason to discard this point then? Anyhow it goes, first of all I wish I had a better way to put it but I believe we were made for "God's pleasure", yhh. Just like the programmer and his video game. Secondly, I'm not sure my God is big on putting people into fire and just burning them. I believe He's big on punishing every wrong doing in the exact way each one deserves. I also believe He's big on rewarding every right doing in the exact way each one deserves. Both according to His PRINCIPLES of course. I believe there's introduction of ways to escape punishment just like a parent would ignore certain wrongs from a child. And I believe there are ways to compensate for undeserved suffering. So question again: If there's a possibility that all these are true, would it calm down your takes a bit? For me, I have finally given up even trying to convince myself of the existence of a god; because after all the arguments I give myself for and against, I always end up with an even bigger question: "If there is a god at all, and he/she/it is everything we are told they are, then why do I or anyone at all need to be convinced of their existence? Why should anyone at all need to argue for their existence? There shouldn't even be a debate.True, true... But then it would now depend on: 1. What you were told God is right? What if there's wrong ideas there or more to know too? Just like the idea of multiverses, time travel and quantum realms seemed stupid and all that till a scientist gives you more in depth breakdown behind each reasoning. Not to convince you, not planning to convince you in the first place, but just so you understand why people even speculate on it. Maybe there is a debate only because there truly is no god anywhere and we know deep within us.I like that you finally typed out God in capital letter. And the statement you made there? I 100% approve. If there's a God, He's going to find you. He's going to reach out. He won't force Himself tho, wherever you see aggressive marketing, that's one of the first signs that it's probably not the God I believe in. Last question: If the God finds you and reaches out, will you take the hand, or spend the whole time pondering? Especially seeing that according to atheists, you don't gain or lose anything. If I'm blending in the idea from atheists with my take on Christianity, it's more or less picking a new hobby (or whatever it should be called) like hitting the gym, starting a personal growth journey, trying a new sport. It's basically just trying to love this "imaginary" God and trying to love your neighbours too. In a scenario where God isn't real, it's like just loving an imaginary friend right and doing things that make you a better person in the process, just so you don't offend the friend. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by Cashme29: 2:43pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
PulsingPurple:No need for apologies. I love long replies; they can be engaging. I am just here to learn and also pour out myself. 1 Like |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 2:54pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
LordReed:Okayyy... You know how sometimes the best of friends were once enemies and the strongest of hates was once love between two people. Iyk,yk 😏 Not concluding, just psychology and a little of history, statistics. And yhh, everyone should think about what they say and choose to believe, no room for sheep-ples who follow the master first, never bother to understand why and are ready to start fighting for their cause. 🙂 As for rules of engagement, I think simple works for me. Present your evidence, let us discuss the validity and the reason why you think it points to a god.Okay. Can I add that there must be open-mindedness, there's no monopoly of knowledge and of course, every response should logically address all that was presented? If that's okay, I'll like you to present your evidence instead, seeing that it goes both ways: to you I have to strong evidence God exists, and vice versa. We can also start somewhere else, how about we address what God is and what even counts as evidence in the first place. There's some posts you made to suggest you're married. If yes, does your wife love you? Is that true or that's just what you believe? Or perhaps what you were made to believe, drawing conclusions from the things that have been happening along the way with you guys? Do you think I will know the correct answer to that, seeing that I don't know what you know? Wait, does love as a whole even exist? If yes, prove? What counts as prove? Or is it just humans pledging to each other in their minds and following a set of logics that they hope will best portray the "love", behaviours that they won't replicate even with this person's robotic clone or twin..? |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 3:06pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
Cashme29:Ahh... We stand gidigba 😂🤝 |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by Cashme29: 3:06pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
PulsingPurple:I actually have a feeling "loving" GOD (since it makes you feel good that I write the word in uppercase) should not be a gamble. You either accept GOD or you don't. You either are sure of yourself, or you accept you are lying to yourself. Sorry I don't want to give my own counterpoints to your arguments so it won't feel like I am here to argue, but I will be following the debate here closely. Not because I need convincing; I know where I stand on the matter already and it's liberating, but I grew up in the church and I still find it fascinating how much people whom I consider smart actually still accept and build their lives on something I consider a total hogwash. Surely, there must be some reason to this "delusions" which I can't see. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by LordReed(m): 3:21pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
PulsingPurple:Since the topic is the existence of the god and you are supporting the positve assertion then the onus is on you to present evidence in support of your position. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 3:22pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
Cashme29:Yhh it makes me feel good. 😂 Made that particular sentence more valid as well. Writing proper nouns with capital letters shouldn't be a debate in 2025 na, even if I'm typing Al-Qaeda or Church of Satan, I'd still use capital letters. I also understand the part of using small letters when referring to the common noun 'god' but mehn... Back to you. Who makes the rules tho? I mean, choosing not to take the gamble is still a gamble right? Same with every other decision in life, especially with decisions where you can't tell the endgame, or decisions that involve any sort of emotional/soulish attachment like starting/joining friendships, relationships, investing in them. Sorry I don't want to give my own counterpoints to your arguments so it won't feel like I am here to argue, but I will be following the debate here closely. Not because I need convincing; I know where I stand on the matter already and it's liberating, but I grew up in the church and I still find it fascinating how much people whom I consider smart actually still accept and build their lives on something I consider a total hogwash. Surely, there must be some reason to this "delusions" which I can't see.No please, it's those counterpoints that validate this conversation in the first place. A conversation has never been one person just talking. Besides, I'm learning, wrapping my head around other POVs, scenarios, so please carry on... If you want to say something that you don't want a reply to, just state it and instruct me not to reply, then we'll not go there. In summary you've just finished saying you're just like myself and LordReed, who already know where we stand but just want to discuss again on this old topic. I think we should carry on. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 3:35pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
LordReed:Inasmuch as that's the idea and I'm a Christian who believes in God, I didn't come here saying all that. I made two threads, one for arguments against God and vice versa. Both are transcripts of a video I saw, not my personal opinion or thought, or a call for debate at all. Picture someone just sharing a reel with you, they don't necessarily ask you to respond or comment, just, “See what I saw...” All this to say I don't really think the burden of proof is on me, but nonetheless, I've given my terms, and also asked some stuff, you didn't respond. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by LordReed(m): 4:12pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
PulsingPurple:But it is if you make the positive assertion. Sure but I am not interested in arguments, I prefer evidence and stated as much in my post. I thought your response to my post was you willing to produce the evidence. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 5:38pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
LordReed:I'm willing to make it. I'm also not interested in arguments. Again you talk about evidence, you haven't said anything regarding this: PulsingPurple:These questions set the table for matters that relate to "evidence". You ignore. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by LordReed(m): 5:48pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
PulsingPurple:You will have to be the one to define god since you are the one with the positive assertion. Evidence is a collection of facts that point exclusively to a certain conclusion. I have evidence my wife loves me. If I gave you the evidence of my wife's love towards me you won't have an other reasonable conclusion. Love is a word we use to describe a collection of attitudes and behaviors exhibited by individuals towards others or towards things. It is very possible to show evidence of love. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 6:19pm On Jul 20, 2025*. Modified: 6:45pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
LordReed:Not sure I need to define "god", the being I'm making this "positive assertion" about is God. There's proper ways to write out different types of nouns, to separate proper nouns from common nouns, and from different concepts entirely. Now my definition of God is a supreme being who's responsible for creating the universe as we know it. Most prominent characteristics would be all-powerful, all-knowing. An expansion of explanations will involve religious books so we hold on. Evidence is a collection of facts that point exclusively to a certain conclusion.Yes, but your definition of evidence doesn't fit the general definition of evidence, it's not extensive. We can go with it though, only if by your definitions, you have "evidence" to prove that love is real and... I have evidence my wife loves me. If I gave you the evidence of my wife's love towards me you won't have an other reasonable conclusion. Love is a word we use to describe a collection of attitudes and behaviors exhibited by individuals towards others or towards things. It is very possible to show evidence of love.Okay? I'd like to see the evidences that will leave me with no other reasonable conclusion. (Sorry for bringing your actual wife into this little conversation. Let's take an imaginary wife instead if you don't mind, same concepts). Then, you say it's very possible to show "evidence" of love. If I'm rephrasing with your definition of evidence, you're saying you have a collection of facts that exclusively point to the conclusion that this wife certainly loves you? You forget that by the mere definition of love you gave, you can't actually prove it per se, your "evidences" will only point to the "fact" that there's those collection of behaviours, attitudes... Then from there you'll infer love: Since love is a collection of these behaviours and attitudes, and she displays these behaviours and attitudes, then this implies she loves me. I don't know if you get my point. But then let's add to that, you know how people use this type of explanations, for instance: “Every orange is a fruit, but not every fruit is an orange“. What if we take it and apply to the collection of behaviours and attitudes that define love: “Every claim of LOVE should display [insert_behaviours_and_attitudes_here], but not every display of [insert_behaviours_and_attitudes_here] should be called LOVE. If you understand these points, that means: 1. Not only can you not actually prove love itself without proving other things and implying, 2. You cannot also totally prove love without actually just listing out characteristics/behaviours that fit your views and inferring/implying. 3. You have to start making exceptions and trying to see the best ways to articulate your "belief" because you're trying to prove something that's not physical/tangible using methods that work best with physical matters. Remember, open-mindedness. All this is allowing your definition of evidence to stand, even when we know it should be more extensive than what you give. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by LordReed(m): 6:56pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
PulsingPurple:Since we are being pedantic, the word god is not a proper name therefore I will not be capitalising it in any discussion except when it is in a direct quote of someone else. Ok so I expect any evidence you present to reflect your definition of the god. Yes, but your definition of evidence doesn't fit the general definition of evidence, it's not extensive.Feel free to provide your own definition of evidence. Okay? I'd like to see the evidences that will leave me with no other reasonable conclusion.Sorry but this is too distracting from the topic at hand. The purpose was to demonstrate what evidence should look like. I am not going to go further with this. I think what I have said is sufficient for you to continue on. Remember, open-mindedness.Again, you are free to expand on what evidence means. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 7:35pm On Jul 20, 2025*. Modified: 8:20pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
LordReed:A proper noun is a proper noun, whether it comes from a myth, fable, or reality. A placeholder name for a proper noun is also a proper noun. When referring to the God I'm talking about, it's a deity who has a specific personality, whose name we replace with a simple "God". See how the word "deity" isn't capitalised even though it also means god? This is not something to argue about, I believe you can easily look up grammar. Open-mindedness. Or you simply state it's your own preference and we know where to proceed to. I wasn't pushing arguments for the existence of gods. I was talking about God, the monotheistic being. Check the thread again. Feel free to provide your own definition of evidence.Ahhh, or simply put, your answers will implicate you maybe? Since you've skipped that part, I understand you grab the point and would rather not indulge. But in case you didn't, I was saying all that to say: 1. Your (most atheists hoping for an easy argument) concept of of evidence is/was flawed: narrow, unrealistic in terms of what we're talking about. 2. Just like Love cannot be empirically/scientifically proven, but can be inferred from patterns, relations... Just like you can't provide an exclusive prove for Love which is metaphysical—a concept, you cannot depend on empirical/scientific standards to prove other non-physical things/concepts. You can infer tho, you can imply if you want. This is basic epistemological principle, we won't be using the standard scientific approach to address something on an entirely different epistemic space. After all, we're trying to prove "existence", a concept. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 7:43pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
@LordReed If you clear me, I can proceed to define the word "evidence". |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by LordReed(m): 8:42pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
PulsingPurple:I have stated my preference. I do not refer to any god with a capital g. So when I am responding you will not see it except as contained in a direct quote. I wasn't pushing arguments for the existence of gods. I was talking about God, the monotheistic being. Check the thread again.Your god doesn't get any special treatment from me. Ahhh, or simply put, your answers will implicate you maybe?Refrain from trying to attribute any motivations to me, that is not how to have a polite discussion. Since you've skipped that part, I understand you grab the point and would rather not indulge.Irrelevant, you have been given the chance to provide a definition of evidence. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by LordReed(m): 8:42pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
PulsingPurple: LordReed: |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by Cashme29: 9:23pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
PulsingPurple:Ok! I understand you here and I totally agree. I just don't want to come on as some proponent of atheism, or some defender of "reason" over faith. I could spend decades trying to disprove the teachings of, lets say the Jehovah Witnesses (whose teachings I consider the most reasonable Bible teaching so far). And if I should succeed at all, I still have an array of other denominations to deal with. Because every church believes we are atheists because we do not see GOD their own way. And if I get done with the church, I still have many other religions to consider their arguments for divinity. These are some of the reasons I avoid the debate altogether. But I have all week. Lets talk. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 9:42pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
LordReed:Let me call you sir. You're my elder after all. I'll give you an easy exit, sir. There's a way lawyers and other relevant bodies speak in court, and you can see that all their words are intentional, their points, precise, even when they have their own preferences and personal emotions to display. I'm betting you've seen a written legal agreement before (plenty times). If we can't try to achieve that here, then I'm no longer interested in any sort of argument here on Nairaland (till further notice). We've spoken before, nothing came out of it. Why repeat the exact same pattern? That's REDUNDANT. You saw my thread and called for an argument because you have contrasting opinions. I paused to emphasize there should be terms to this conversation. I was particular about properly defining all words we'll be using going on, from God to evidence. I also talked about open-mindedness, being logical, answering what's presented before you. In all this (like every single one fr fr), you fail. There's no sense in moving forward. Not like I've even introduced any new thing, I just created some analogies, asked some questions, tried to start clarifying some terms, isn't that HOW ARGUMENTS WORK?... The definition of God as a proper noun is something you could easily Google, the meaning of evidence and the concept I'm pushing is something you could also crosscheck, but only IF YOU WANTED TO. There's the ISSUE—You don't want to. And that's a very obvious sign of close-mindedness. In the process you dismissed everything you were told/asked. It can very easily be inferred that you're not up for a logical conversation. See how you directly match the opposite of my terms... the opposite of who I'm willing to discuss with? So what can I say? NO, I refuse to indulge you sir. |
| Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 10:18pm On Jul 20, 2025 |
Cashme29:Yhh I didn't mean to portray the idea that every action is made without thinking too far, hence gambling. Sorry 😅 I just meant the simplest definition of gambling: A situation where you have to choose because there's different possible outcomes, each with its own risk—big or small, material or immaterial, serious or unserious. The whole idea behind this saying that “Life itself is a risk“. That's just side talk tho, if you chose to test other claims of God, or even stay where you are it's still your choice. Each choice with its own outcome in the grand scheme of things, that's what I referred to as the gamble not any form of sheepish behaviour. 🙏 Was just side talk. Ok! I understand you here and I totally agree. I just don't want to come on as some proponent of atheism, or some defender of "reason" over faith. I could spend decades trying to disprove the teachings of, lets say the Jehovah Witnesses (whose teachings I consider the most reasonable Bible teaching so far). And if I should succeed at all, I still have an array of other denominations to deal with. Because every church believes we are atheists because we do not see GOD their own way. And if I get done with the church, I still have many other religions to consider their arguments for divinity. These are some of the reasons I avoid the debate altogether. But I have all week. Lets talk.Ehh true. But then here the argument is not even about the one true God, whoever He may be (or it/she/he if you prefer). The idea here is just establishing a vague definition of an entity that fits the role of what we (the majority) keep in mind when we refer to a 'God', and then proceeding to question all claims that point to the possible existence of this entity. It's basically saying, “Take a look at this world, shouldn't it have a creator? A creator who has to be powerful enough to create, and knows everything because He created. Creator? Superiorly powerful? Superiorly intelligent? Hence fitting the basic definition of a God?“ No specifics yet, just the idea. If the above is the question, what would be your response if I may ask? |
Terrible Arguments For The Exsitence Of God • Arguments For God • Why Does An Interacting God Need Arguments For Its Existence? • 2 • 3 • 4
What Love Can Do----the True Test Of Love • South African Witches Fight For Rights - What Does Religion Say About This? • Why Do Some Churches Insist On You Becoming Their Member ?