RE: Here is why you should believe in God.
April 4, 2020 at 5:33 pm
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2020 at 5:59 pm by R00tKiT.)
(April 2, 2020 at 8:02 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What you have is empty headed wonder that...as a living human being asking questions, the requirements of your existence are met. Gee, real fuckin headscrtacher there.
..duuuuuh
You do realise you're just repeating an empty tautology, right? Even in the existence of a deity in your worldview, you would still repeat the same stupid objection you just wrote.
Imagine dolls suddenly becoming conscious and thinking that they solved all the age-old philosophical problems of their existence by saying" there is no need to think of the possibility of a manufacturer... we're clearly brought here because requirement of our existence are met".... stupid right..?
The first reaction of a fucking doll becoming conscious is to think it has to have a creator, a manufacturer. And just because the subsequent dolls changed shape and evolved after billions of years shouldn't make them forget their gracious first manufacturer... it's really that simple.
(April 2, 2020 at 8:02 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Could the universe have been "worse" or "better" - sure. It's unclear that we would be here to ask the question if it had been, though.
A worse universe with conscious beings like us/worse than us is entirely possible, it's not hard to imagine much simpler scenarios of some naive notion of consciousness in some unidimensional existence, which makes the question even more pressing : how come we have a better universe than infinitely many worse outcomes ? It doesn't take more than to understand sanely the question, to conclude that it took a personal cause to come up with a good enough universe for its ultimate purpose.
Back to the ex nihilo question, "something can't come from nothing" tautology is not broken in the case of a deity. A deity was always there, to say it came from nothing already presupposes the deity was preceded by this nothing, but a deity is eternal by definition.
(April 2, 2020 at 8:02 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: This is not a reason to believe in a god, lol.
Belief in a god can of course be justified in a cumulative argument. Something caused all this. A first cause's properties can be inferred from its effects since, again, something can't give what it doesn't have - and this holds true in your 747 example when investigated closely -. We already have a personal, eternal agent outside of our universe.
All the objections I know against what's above are nothing more than dishonest wordplay. All the premises to get to a personal, eternal cause are the simplest elements of reasoning possible. And they're all it takes to justify belief in god.
It only remains to justify how a first personal cause would possess the justness property. One this is done, justness directly implies this eternal agent provided us with guidance.
(April 2, 2020 at 2:14 am)Succubus#2 Wrote: If God gave us the laws of the universe then why did he formulate those laws the only way they could work? What choice did he have, the universe can't work any other way.
How do you know that? How can you possibly prove that any possible universe must have the same exact laws we have ..?
(April 2, 2020 at 2:14 am)Succubus#2 Wrote: Pi, 3.14159. How can that number be anything other than what it is
defining pi still takes imagining a two dimensional circle. A unidimensional universe is not impossible, a priori.
(April 2, 2020 at 2:14 am)Succubus#2 Wrote: If those constants were anything other than what they are the universe would not exist.
So what? Robots can say the same thing about their fine tuning. Is that excuse enough for them to deny any human manufacturer?
(April 2, 2020 at 9:31 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Wow, so because there are so called laws of nature there must be a god because he gave us laws like to kill all of our firstborn male children (yes, human sacrifice) Exodus 22:29 and 34:19.I think this is off topic. I am not arguing for any particular religion here. Laws clearly imply a lawgiver for all the reasons I mentioned. It's better to proceed one step a time;
(April 2, 2020 at 9:31 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: And also God failed to mention any of those laws of nature. I mean imagine how easier human life would have been if he mentioned laws of nature
Improvement of our quality of life is a very clumsy objection. It's not even clear we're more fortunate than our ancestors. Some would argue we just live differently, not better, whatever better is supposed to mean...
(April 2, 2020 at 9:31 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Also there is no reason why the laws of physics cannot have come from within the universe itself. And they all lead humans to follow to the symmetries of the void out of which the universe spontaneously arose without any miracle or divine intervention.
.... spontaneously arose
(April 2, 2020 at 11:14 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Ultimately, it comes down to what OP means by "God". If "God" is that which is defined as the ground of existence, then it's no question that its existence is at the least plausible. The problem for the OP (based on his posts) is that they're not really arguing for that, even if they see it as an initial starting point for what they actually believe.
God = ground of existence is not the same thing as standard Muslim take of God (or even standard Christian for that matter). As soon as you argue for a more limited (or less simple) God (whether it's the Trinity or some superhuman kind of God), you lose the "right" to say you're arguing for God in the former sense.
It would be progress if we agree on what you call a starting point. And I don't think the God as defined in Islam is that different from a ground of existence, they're just a few attributes apart.
