₦airaland Forum

hupernikao:
Let someone who have understanding of discuss respond, you are clogging the thread.

Even your respond is already away from what he asked. Do you just respond because you feel like or you read properly before responding.

He asked a question on different sect, but your hatred for Christianity can't let you see beyond the false doctrine you have been taught.

Every of your text always make me pity you, because they reveal to me how badly taught you are.

Why are you attacking me because you cannot disprove that flying spaghetti monster created your God?

Dude, it's just your logic that I am using against you, don't use it if you can't take it.
You want people who will not hit you with hard philosophical reasoning?

Don't argue with me if you cannot stand logic and reasoning. Stop getting too emotional

hupernikao:
There are no rules, your intellect and ability to critical reasoning is enough for you to know what's true. That's simple.

Little wonder 100 people can have 100 different interpretations to one bible verse.
All of them think their critical thinking and reasoning is correct since there is no method to verifiable or test any. It’s explains why we have numerous denominations making unscrupulous claims that contradicts each other.

And this is what you want rational people to take seriously?

hupernikao:
It's true. I will send it to nursery class and give you a contact. Your argument will be perfect there. Where you can dance in circles with the cradles.

Fallacy of ad hominem.

Just disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim. I will not denigrate you in this argument

hupernikao:
The only thing you do is to make jest of yourself in the face of any intelligent reader. A run in circle and avoidance of questions already showed how weak your points are. You only end up rubbishing your knowledge and false post you created. They were oy premised on poor assumptions and illusion.


Remember, when a man go with the wrong tool to harvest, he will labor so much and still be complaining.

You started using the laughing emoji dude.
I was engaging politely and I’m still engaging you politely.

I’m just laughing because your own logic is working against you now. It’s difficult for you to counter the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim.

hupernikao:
Like I said, go back to your study of science. You are still in formative year. You have so much questions you can't answer. Alt least I have asked you not less than 5 questions on NL that has no return. It showed gap in your study. You need to revisit your books and work more.

This will make your argument smart and appealing but for now, you are still a learner.

You still cannot disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

You cannot because it will reveal the fraud in your argument.
You see?

hupernikao:
It's a perfect one for you. I guess you are short of defence again.

Like I have advise you, don't start discussion you don't have good knowledge about you will end up just moving in circle trying to defend yourself. Your topic is already flawed from the beginning. I presented to you simple questions but you couldn't even comprehend them.

You claim to be scientce inclined, yet you have little knowledge of the limitations of science.


You will do best to take time to do more study before coming out again to discuss about God.

That discussion is not for baby atheist else you will be giving such cradle argument as you did in your first post.

i am hitting you with Russell’s teapot analogy.

It’s the best way to make you see how ridiculous your line of reasoning is.
you have been forced to accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist.

You do not have an option because you need your god to exist to stay relevant. So it’s okay for Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist as long as your own god exist.

It’s Russell’s teapot and it rubbishes any religious argument.

hupernikao:
It's a perfect one for you. I guess you are short of defence again.

Like I have advise you, don't start discussion you don't have good knowledge about you will end up just moving in circle trying to defend yourself. Your topic is already flawed from the beginning. I presented to you simple questions but you couldn't even comprehend them.

You claim to be scientce inclined, yet you have little knowledge of the limitations of science.


You will do best to take time to do more study before coming out again to discuss about God.

That discussion is not for baby atheist else you will be giving such cradle argument as you did in your first post.

I also claim that theology has little limited knowledge and cannot disprove or prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn’t create the Christian god.

It’s true because I don’t have to provide evidence for it. I Just need to create a dubious argument that you can’t disprove, no matter what

hupernikao:
Good then, hold unto it and let him hold unto you. It's your God. As the scriptures also presented my God to me.

Maybe next time when you start making bogus claims about your god and then putting it to an unverifiable point, you should note your logic can be applied to just about anything that doesn’t exist.
It will backfire

If you claims are right, the the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim is also right. They don’t contradict, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is only a higher creator, bigger than Yahweh

hupernikao:
Good then, hold unto it and let him hold unto you. It's your God. As the scriptures also presented my God to me.

He created your god

hupernikao:
I guess you are only here to keep awake. There is no logic here you presented.

Christian presented a theology documented. If your God is a rat present the theology and documents to support this. Aside this you are only rolling on the floor in circles.

When we understand Christian god completely then we can understand the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Our understanding is still limited, we cannot comprehend him. It’s the reason you cannot disprove him.

hupernikao:
Present the book the book for your theology, not a roll around. I am not here to disprove even if you say your God is a rat. But present it from your evidential domain. That's simple enough.

He is too complex to be described totally in any book, our level of understanding is still very low to describe him.

If we cannot totally understand the Christian god, is it the creator of the Christian god that we will comprehend?
Think about it, we need to properly understand the Christian god before looking to understand the Flying Spaghetti Monster: the creator of Yahweh

hupernikao:
Run?
You always think so much of yourself.

I have posed at least two questions to you here that you don't even have an answers. I left them because I want you to have time to think through them. Even if it takes you a decade. I am not in a rush.

And in your assertion.
To have forgotten, that Christian theology is documented, it doesn't give room for unnecessary extended research. It's not finding new things, it's examining what has been documented. Hence it revealed God within its context.

If you know any spaghetti that you can't find in the market, then present a theological book that explains it, let's examine it. Christian theology examine God within the revelation of Christ. You can present to me the book that gave evidence of your thoughts.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t need proper documentation, the tools in theology now are too limited to properly describe him. He’s too complex and that’s why he’s beyond the Christian god.

As we improve, we will get to know this truth

hupernikao:
Run?
You always think so much of yourself.

I have posed at least two questions to you here that you don't even have an answers. I left them because I want you to have time to think through them. Even if it takes you a decade. I am not in a rush.

And in your assertion.
To have forgotten, that Christian theology is documented, it doesn't give room for unnecessary extended research. It's not finding new things, it's examining what has been documented. Hence it revealed God within its context.

If you know any spaghetti that you can't find in the market, then present a theological book that explains it, let's examine it. Christian theology examine God within the revelation of Christ. You can present to me the book that gave evidence of your thoughts.

This Flying Spaghetti Monster lives beyond space and time and the Christian god.

It must be true because the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster said it?

When logic backfires

hupernikao:
Who told you theology can't find evidence of God?

God is found all through it. Revealed in essence and presence. Well documented and preserved. Like I said, you may be able to find the spaghetti in a supermarket. Theology is for finding God.

Even if it finds evidence for Christian god, it can’t find for Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the Christian god.

The tools used by theology is very limited in doing that

hupernikao:
Theology isn't even looking for that. It's not in its premise. We are sure of what we have and have believed. We are not of such that are troubled. If it is about God o. We dey, our conviction total.

So let the one with spaghetti go to supermarket to get one.

Science isn’t looking for god either, it’s just making findings and some disproves god.

Theology should work hard to disprove Flying Spaghetti Monster is that same light.

It’s either you accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Christian god or develop a tool to disprove it

I love Russell’s teapot, if this doesn’t make you see the absurdity in all you have been saying then I don’t know what will make you to

Hupernikao, come on. You can’t run when I start using a simple Russell’s teapot against you?
I think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is beyond the comprehension of theology and we need a more sophisticated tool to be able to figure him out. Theology doesn’t know all, it’s improving and still has limitations.

Maybe in few centuries to come, it will find out that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of Yahweh. I do not have to provide evidence for this, we don’t have the tool to find the evidence yet

hupernikao:


You will need to study more o.

This one that I had time to even drag you into your observatory and instrumented scientific domain, you refused to answer. I hardly even want to talk to that. I won't push you far.

I prefer facing my theology. That's where the full assurance of God is. Unshaken, convinced, immovable, persuaded and assured.

Same way the theological instrument is yet to find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Maybe it will find it in future when it improves more. We all will then know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

hupernikao:
Then it is not in the domain of such. Find the domain where it exists and can be proven and present it. Theology is sufficient enough to prove a fundamental character of its study, God. The knowing can be extended, but the existence must be evident in such theology.

If the theological tool can’t find evidence for god, I don’t see why we shouldn’t think it cannot find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think as the theological field is improving, it will find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster someday, unless you disagree that the theological field is improving

hupernikao:
Well present the theology for us to examine.

That's the domain where the prove lies. So present it.

What if I say the theological tools is limited and cannot find this yet?

hupernikao:
The same way you have 100% assurance that electricity exist true scientific rules, same way I have 100% assurance of God's existence through theological rules. That's the right tool for the right harvest

So it means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exist and I believe his claim that he created the Christian God. We just need the right tool to test this claim

That logic also applies to that right?

hupernikao:
You have moved again from the question asked.

Do you use science to prove the love of your friend to you? Or you trust him? These are simple questions.

Love exist, but do you take them to lab to proof this?

Last last, there is still an element of trust in you even without scientific instrument.

See, there are over a million things in existence that science is still yet to know or struggling to know. Knowing God isn't close for now.

I'm not going to answer a logicallly flawed loaded question.

How are you sure that God exist?

I'm not sure and that's why I don't believe it.

hupernikao:
Am sure you aren't reading me well. Subtle way not to ask for evidence? I only use a textual allegory to help you see your mistake. You are looking for God in the wrong place just like looking for electricity in the Bible.


And on your 100% assurance, Well like I said, even science never said that. Atheist can but science don't speak in absolute. That's the difference between atheist and science.

Dude,

I don't have 100% certaintyand that's why I don't believe it. It's very illogical to believe things you are not 100% sure about.
If you have 100% assurance that he exist then how did you get that complete level of certainty?

hupernikao:
Likewise it's not evidence of "no God".
But that limitation alone, is necessary and sufficient to stop you speaking in 100% confidence level that there is no God. Even science never said so.

But there's no evidence for god. Why must you create a subtle way of telling us not to ask for evidence?

I'm 100% sure that unicorns didn't and don't exists, same way I am sure of a Christian God.

hupernikao:
Just put it simply. Theology must be confirmed by science because in your mind now, everything rotates around science alone.

Ordinary, love (I love you) cannot be subjected to your testing testing to ascertain. No single scientific tool exist to test such virtue.

Or you have tested your girlfriend or wife love in the scientific lab to be sure?

I guess you trusted her love, right? Remember that word Trust? You don't like hearing it but it is part of you.

Theology must not be confirmed by science.

You don't need science to go to hospitals and grow an amputated limb that has verifiable hospital records.

You don't need science to recreated a man walking on water to prove that it happens. You only need a simple way that it can be verified outside of a book written by bronze age herders that didn't know that earth is spherical.


We don't need science to verify that humans cannot be born without fertilization, it's common sense and unscientific data findings can test that.

Nothingserious:
Thanks. These long and fine arguments done by the philosophers is okay already.
Points and counter points...

Will you believe my subjective personal experiences of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit ministration if I talk about it?
That’s just the additional thing I could add to the intellectual arguments up there.

Alright, have a nice night then

I will only believe a testable evidence and not personal revelation

hupernikao:
You always don't have an answer. And then result to illogical fallacy. You will need to add honesty to your discussion as have told you before. When you are hooked don't try to waive around. What I asked you is as simple as ABC.

You test electricity using scientific principles not theology. Yet you want to test theology outside theology because you want a proof.


Like I told you, when you have the wrong tool you will work in harvest like a planter yet be complaining there is no harvest.

Now go and reread my first respond.

Theology is the branch of study that study God. Such work is to find out God, if you want to find out, go that way. The limitation of scientific tool in this premise is so much that you will have over 100% deviation and false result.

The limitations of scientific tool is not evidence for god. It's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

You need to stop commiting that fallacy

hupernikao:
You always don't have an answer. And then result to illogical fallacy. You will need to add honesty to your discussion as have told you before. When you are hooked don't try to waive around. What I asked you is as simple as ABC.

You test electricity using scientific principles not theology. Yet you want to test theology outside theology because you want a proof.


Like I told you, when you have the wrong tool you will work in harvest like a planter yet be complaining there is no harvest.

Now go and reread my first respond.

Theology is the branch of study that study God. Such work is to find out God, if you want to find out, go that way. The limitation of scientific tool in this premise is so much that you will have over 100% deviation and false result.

Theology as a branch of study doesn't have any evidence for what it does, just like astrology.

What you are inferring is that astrology cannot be tested by empirical method. That's a flawed argument.

Theology will need to substantiate what it does by developing a means of testing her claims else it cannot be removed from same Cadre as astrology.

Nothingserious:
When you lift part or a whole of an academic work, you make reference to the work and acknowledge the original owners. Otherwise it becomes an intellectual theft.

You didn’t sound like you lifted it from anywhere. Rather you bragged about it.
So let me respond to your copy and paste by my own copy and paste. But I will acknowledge the link it came from...

Arguments For the Existence of God (Overview)

Aquinas’ Five Ways

For in depth analysis of the individual arguments, see unmoved mover, first cause, argument from contingency, argument from degree, or teleological argument.
In the first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God’s existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument.[17][18] Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in his work.[19] Aquinas’ Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument.

The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[17]
Aquinas’ argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.[17]
The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.[17]
Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.[17]
The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.[17]
Rational warrant

Philosopher Stephen Toulmin is notable for his work in the history of ideas[20] that features the (rational) warrant: a statement that connects the premises to a conclusion.

Joseph Hinman applied Toulmin’s approach in his argument for the existence of God, particularly in his book The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief.[21]Instead of attempting to prove the existence of God, Hinman argues you can “demonstrate the rationally warranted nature of belief”.[22]

Hinman uses a wide range of studies, including ones by Robert Wuthnow, Andrew Greeley, Mathes and Kathleen Nobel to establish that mystical experiences are life-transformative in a way that is significant, positive and lasting.[23] He draws on additional work to add several additional major points to his argument. First, the people who have these experiences not only do not exhibit traditional signs of mental illness but, often, are in better mental and physical health than the general population due to the experience.[24] Second, the experiences work. In other words, they provide a framework for navigating life that is useful and effective.[25] All of the evidence of the positive effects of the experience upon people’s lives he, adapting a term from Derrida, terms “the trace of God”: the footprints left behind that point to the impact.

Finally, he discusses how both religious experience and belief in God is, and has always been, normative among humans:[26] people do not need to prove the existence of God. If there is no need to prove, Hinman argues, and the Trace of God (for instance, the impact of mystical experiences on them), belief in God is rationally warranted.

Deductive arguments

Ontological argument

The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including St. Anselm and René Descartes. The argument proposes that God’s existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation, reads roughly as follows:[27]

Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.[27]

Thomas Aquinas criticized the argument for proposing a definition of God which, if God is transcendent, should be impossible for humans.[28] Immanuel Kant criticized the proof from a logical standpoint: he stated that the term “God” really signifies two different terms: both idea of God, and God. Kant concluded that the proof is equivocation, based on the ambiguity of the word God.[29] Kant also challenged the argument’s assumption that existence is a predicate (of perfection) because it does not add anything to the essence of a being. If existence is not a predicate, then it is not necessarily true that the greatest possible being exists.[30] A common rebuttal to Kant’s critique is that, although “existence” does add something to both the concept and the reality of God, the concept would be vastly different if its referent is an unreal Being.[citation needed] Another response to Kant is attributed to Alvin Plantinga who explains that even if one were to grant Kant that “existence” is not a real predicate, “Necessary Existence”, which is the correct formulation of an understanding of God, is a real predicate, thus according to Plantinga Kant’s argument is refuted.[31]

Inductive arguments

Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottishstatesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?[32]
Other arguments

The hypothesis of well design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause.[33] Its proponents are mainly Christians.[34]
Argument from belief in God being properly basic as presented by Alvin Plantinga.[35]
Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability and the evolutionary argument against naturalism, concluding that naturalism is incapable of providing humans with the cognitive apparatus necessary for their knowledge to have positive epistemic status.[36]
Argument from Personal Identity.[37]
Argument from the “divine attributes of scientific law”.[38]
Subjective arguments

Arguments from historical events or personages

The sincere seeker’s argument, espoused by Muslim Sufis of the Tasawwuf tradition, posits that every individual who follows a formulaic path towards guidance, arrives at the same destination of conviction in the existence of God and specifically in the monotheistic tenets and laws of Islam. This could only be true if the formula and supplication were being answered by the same Divine entity being addressed, as claimed in Islamic revelations. This was formally organized by Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali in such notable works as “Deliverance from Error” and “The Alchemy of Happiness,” in Arabic “Kimiya-yi sa’adat“. The path includes following the golden rule of no harm to others and treating others with compassion, silence or minimal speech, seclusion, daily fasting or minimalist diet of water and basic nourishment, honest wages, and daily supplication towards “the Creator of the Universe” for guidance.[39][40]
Christianity and Judaism assert that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.[citation needed]
The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a fortiori, God’s existence.[41] This is one of several arguments known as the Christological argument.
Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Qur’an, and its unique literary attributes, vindicate its divine authorship, and thus the existence of God.[42][43]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ, and angels to Joseph Smith and others and subsequent finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the existence of God. The whole Latter Day Saint movement makes the same claim for example Community of Christ, Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite), etc.[citation needed]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), similarly asserts that the finding and translation of the Plates of Laban, also known as the Brass Plates, into the Book of the Law of the Lord and Voree plates by James Strang, One Mighty and Strong, establishes the existence of God.[citation needed]
Various sects that have broken from the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (such as Church of Christ “With the Elijah Message” and Church of Christ (Assured Way)) claim that the message brought by John the Baptist, One Mighty and Strong, to Otto Fetting and W. A. Draves in The Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an Angel establishes the existence of God.[citation needed]
Arguments from testimony

Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.[44]

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles (also referred to as “the priest stories”) which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God’s existence.
Arguments grounded in personal experiences

The sincere seeker’s argument, espoused by Muslim Sufis of the Tasawwuf tradition, posits that every individual who follows a formulaic path towards guidance, arrives at the same destination of conviction in the existence of God and specifically in the monotheistic tenets and laws of Islam. This apparent natural law for guidance and belief could only be consistent if the formula and supplication were being answered by the same Divine entity being addressed, as claimed in Islamic revelations. This was formally organized by Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali in such notable works as “Deliverance from Error” and “The Alchemy of Happiness,” in Arabic “Kimiya-yi sa’ādat“. The path includes following the golden rule of no harm to others and treating others with compassion, silence or minimal speech, seclusion, daily fasting or minimalist diet of water and basic nourishment, honest wages, and daily supplication towards “the Creator of the Universe” for guidance.[39][40]
An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God. Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Church, became a pillar of the Church after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Modern day examples in Evangelical Protestantism are sometimes called “Born-Again Christians“.
The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by people without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that people accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges people to accept them.[citation needed]
The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is “properly basic”; that it is similar to statements like “I see a chair” or “I feel pain”.[citation needed]Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a person’s consciousness and unites them to one another.[45] God’s existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.
In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when a person’s understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of people’s hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.[citation needed]
The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[46]
Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher’s footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished to people by inner experience, feeling, and perception.[citation needed]
Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them, one can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in one’s subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself.[citation needed] In condemnation of this view the Oath Against Modernism formulated by Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: “Deum … naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor.” (“I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.”)
Brahma Kumaris religion was established in 1936, when God was said to enter the body of diamond merchant Lekhraj Kripalani (1876–1969) in Hyderabad, Sindh and started to speak through him.[47][48]
Hindu arguments

Most schools of Hindu philosophy accept the existence of a creator god (Brahma), while some do not. The school of Vedanta argues that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma. In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta—an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result—by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara).[49]

A human’s karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the axe moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits.[50] Thus, God affects the person’s environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences.[51] Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.

The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma;[52] it is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some are poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual’s actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God.[52] This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.[52]

OK noted.

Can you adresss the topic now?

peteregwu:
If you ate like believe in the existence of God or not, just wait until you are dead and find yourself in hell fire, your eyes go clear.

Smh..

This is another flawed argument called the Pascal's wager. Seems like alot of you don't have good background in philosophy.

Pascal's wager form of theological argument has been flawed since it even started because it commits a fallacy of false dilemma which doesnt address the existence of over 4000 gods and possible hells.
It raises they question of why you think your own Christian narrative of hell and heaven is the true one out of 4000 that we have today?

Nothingserious:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/arguments-against-the-existence-of-god-overview/

Copy and paste!
Go back and copy more.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-overview/

Next!

Did I say it wasn't copied or you just don't want to address the topic?

hupernikao:
You haven't answered me. You need to know how to answer question if you are sure of what you know.


How do we proof that electricity exist? Scientific or by Theology?

Do you use the Bible to prove the existence of electricity.

See, my questions are always deliberate, so trying to avoid them won't work in discussions.

You want science to proof theology as the basis of true evidence. So let me know what proof you have outside science tools and observation for electricity. Can we use theology to prove electricity?

Your question is faulty.
You assume that theological events should not be tested by empirical. Methods. There's no evidence for this.

This same empirical method to test for electricity should also be used to test for every event in the Bible. The idea of making it impossible to test is dubious unless there's evidence theological events have special and reliable methods to test them, which no theologian has even produced. It's a product of cognitive dissonance.

So your question is illogical, dubious and a subtle way of telling me not to question theological claims.

hupernikao:
Does the proof of science comes from theology? Or the proof of electricity comes from scriptures?

When you use the wrong tool in the harvest, you will labor like a man in planting time without even result.

The Bible made claims without prove, what you are insinuating is that "the Bible is right because the Bible said its right". That's unacceptable, It's a circular argument and fallacy of begging the question at the same time.

The logical position should be "the Bible is right because evidence and data says its right".