Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[fr0d0]

Couldn't 'naturally occurring' = 'first that ever occurred' = 'God'

[ib.me.ub]

Interesting. Since we can not yet determine what there was before this occurance. I can not say yes or no to this, because I do not know.

[fr0d0]

Well the first occurrence had to come from God who is timeless according the the goat herder's theory. Which leaves room for a singularity which ties in with a certain scientific theory.

On another level we can observe the natural occurrence of religious practice in humans throughout history. So humans have always been aware of what we now call 'divine'. So from that perspective God could be defined as naturally occurring.

[ib.me.ub]

Yes god could quite possible be the singularity, and hence everything.

[fr0d0]

Indeed he could. And that's another totally unprovable statement either way. And so not worthy of a mention

[Rhizomorph13]

Well the first occurrence had to come from God who is timeless according the the goat herder's theory. Which leaves room for a singularity which ties in with a certain scientific theory.

On another level we can observe the natural occurrence of religious practice in humans throughout history. So humans have always been aware of what we now call 'divine'. So from that perspective God could be defined as naturally occurring.

Where is the "thumbs down" button when you need it! Sorry Fr0d0 old boy, but that was terrible! I do believe you are going to hypnotize Scotty.

[Autumnlicious]

Well the first occurrence had to come from God who is timeless according the the goat herder's theory. Which leaves room for a singularity which ties in with a certain scientific theory.

On another level we can observe the natural occurrence of religious practice in humans throughout history. So humans have always been aware of what we now call 'divine'. So from that perspective God could be defined as naturally occurring.

No, I do not think that belief in gods is natural, merely a misinterpretation of normal behaviors we take for granted in normal social cognition.

Evolutionary Psychologist Dr. Andy Thomson did a talk for American Atheists 09 describing just that.

[youtube]1iMmvu9eMrg[/youtube]

[Purple Rabbit]

So, I pose the question, What is the point of arguing about things that are far from actual understanding?

Please define 'actual understanding' since you seem to pose that all fora should shut down without it.

Understanding how things actually work! And, yes we should all stop arguing

That helps a lot.....not

The problem starts right there, with the meaning of the word understanding.
You say we're far from actual understanding, but how can you know? Do you mean absolute knowledge? Than please define absolute knowledge and provide a means to test how fr we are from it.

I can tell you something about how the sun 'works' but why would you call it understanding, no matter what's the detail I provide. One can always reason there is another reality under the reality we think we understand (hell, there's probably litte green chipmunks getting all those fundamental particles to work). Anyway, for me understanding has to do with rules, consistency, patterns and verification of all the steps involved. Understanding is like a intricate web of interwoven falsifiable statements, not like a postulate hanging freely in mid air, a skyhook. IOW you haven't defined actual understanding at all.

BTW, I like the "aka Scotty" thing.

[fr0d0]

Thanks for that Syn. Well he starts off badly by aligning himself with the clowns of philosophy.

A reasoning byproduct that produces a positive effect sometimes unattainable by any other means - hmm... he's missing something there. Oh yes - a discernible function. How convenient. Or is he missing the actual point of religion and simply substituting the old red herring superstition.. which unbeknown to him we all dismiss. Of course the point of religion is to lay down a simple methodology for attaining human happiness.

Humans respond to human stimuli ... of course. Moot point. Religion is formulated and designed to be understood by people. God is described in a way that humans can understand. There is no need for it to be described for any other species/ entity etc.

Cognition of basic scientific principles is nothing to do with religious belief. That's the common misunderstanding. I can understand natural selection yet also understand what point God has to human life - how can that be... of course I have to be ignorant and or not understand the scientific. How sad to think that you have to have proof to believe in anything. How lacking in confidence in your own cognitive abilities to limit your thinking so badly. How can you reduce human experience so savagely and suggest that we are so one dimensional. Life must be so black and white - what is the point to all those other colours after all... why do we need them? Light and dark is all that matters isn't it?

Brains cogitate religious understanding in areas of the brain evolved by adaptive mechanisms. Well blow me over. Was anyone expecting a special are of the brain pre created LOL. What bollocks.

He makes a tenuous link between soul and our desire to maintain the missing life. We don't make plans for our funerals because we think we're going to be there - we're considering the event from the perspective of other people who will have to suffer the event. He misses the real point of course... but then what is his presentation besides a withholding of one side of the discussion.

He claims that religions hijack morality. Yet religion describes morality. Religion takes a position on morality and the anti religious say "wait, everything you say is wrong - we wanna work it out for ourselves"... then come up with the same conclusions.

Altruistic Punishment: willingness to punish social cheats at cost to ourselves

The opposite of Christian morality - not the same as he says. Not hijacked - turned around.

All human communication uses innate human triggers otherwise it wouldn't be human communication. To single out religion as somehow at fault for using the same mechanisms is fallacious.

Religious rituals based on threat response, being compelling and rigidly scripted ...and he goes on: now we're in the land of abuse of religion to coerce.

Religion opposes science sure - it's a problem and it's never right. What religion is actually about tho' is never in conflict. So I think his conclusion is childish and gives credence to bad religion.


I saw no reason at all in any of that hour long stating of the obvious, that challenges my point at all.

Negotiating social relationships bore the capacity for religious thought. As soon as humans developed the capacity they cogitated philosophical ideas. Scientists seek to dismiss philosophical ideas as irrelevant when all the evidence shows how it's central to the makeup of a human being.

[ib.me.ub]

for me understanding has to do with rules, consistency, patterns and verification of all the steps involved. (snip)

Yes, I agree with this part. But, that is what I am trying to say. Because we cannot prove how everything actaully works, we can not say how things actually work.

I believe the information needed for absolute knowledge of everything maybe unattainable. For at a certain level, things become illogical.

Also, absolute knowledge of things we actually know as the truth, for they are testable/provable, could not be determined by a human being. It would require some type of AI (Machine Intelligence). I fear we do not possess the ability to process this amount of information.

---

yet also understand what point God has to human life

Could you please describe this for me?